> > (SOCKET:SOCKET-SERVER-HOST socket-server)
> > (SOCKET:SOCKET-SERVER-PORT socket-server)
> > Returns the host mask indicating which hosts can connect to this
> > server and the port which was bound using SOCKET:SOCKET-SERVER.
> > Is that correct? I thought this was the local ip address, not remote.
> it's a mask for remote hosts.
> see stream.d:SOCKET-SERVER and socket.d:create_server_socket.
The comments there seem to suggest that this is related to remote
hosts, but what I see in man (wandering through ip(7), bind(2),
packet(7), socket) leads me to believe, as I thought before, that it's
the local address.
This also says, if I read it correctly, that there's nothing between
0.0.0.0 and a single address, i.e., no /24's.
So what I'd like is an optional IP address. My understanding is that
on a machine with multiple IP addresses you can listen on one or on
all. Sometimes you want one and sometimes the other.
So far I don't see how to do that with the optional socket argument,
since that could only have been created the same way, giving an IP
address of 0.0.0.0, right?
> the argument to SOCKET-SERVER can be an existing SOCKET-STREAM, in
> which case the peer address of that SOCKET-STREAM will be the only
> address from which this SOCKET-SERVER can accept connections.
This seems to suggest (again) that the address is the remote IP.
I think it's the address of the LOCAL machine.
If I have two IP addresses I want to use ONE of them for this socket
so I can still use the other for another one on the same port, for
instance if I want to run two different web servers with my two
different IP addresses.
> I am not sure about the reasons for this dichotomy (either port or mask
> but not both; either mask 0.0.0.0 or a single IP).
The man pages suggest 0.0.0.0 is not a mask but a special case
Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.