Re: packet filtering vs. conserver

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 06:22:00AM +0200, Bryan Stansell wrote:

> It would make the main port 782, and then start allocating from 783 for
> the rest...up to the number of conserver processes forked off.

Thanks, it seems to work. I've also found the '-m' switch, and the
combination of the two makes for predictable port usage.

Zonker: as I understand it, the client first contacts the server
(master) to determine which host/port to connect to for a given console,
then connects to said host/port (which may be the same host as the
master).  These two connections are in no relation on the TCP/IP level,
and the second one's port is sort of random by default.

cheers,

Andras