• Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
Netgate Discussion Forum
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login

Inetd[568]: 19486/tcp: bind: Address already in use

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved NAT
11 Posts 4 Posters 4.7k Views
Loading More Posts
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • C
    cubsfan
    last edited by Sep 7, 2010, 1:59 PM

    Running 1.2.3-release.  I'm getting this message in my system logs for a few of the ports used for nat bouncing according to /etc/services.  Seeing it for 19487 and 19488 as well.  What would be causing this?

    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
    • J
      jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
      last edited by Sep 8, 2010, 12:27 PM

      Do you have overlapping port ranges in a port forward? Or perhaps an alias of ports in use on a NAT rule?

      Maybe using the same port on two different VIPs with reflection enabled (Though I thought that was handled in the code, but I haven't looked)

      Reflection was completely overhauled on 2.0, you might give it a try and see if it behaves any differently with your configuration.

      Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

      Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

      Do not Chat/PM for help!

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • C
        cubsfan
        last edited by Sep 9, 2010, 1:22 PM

        Could it be because I've got port forwards and a 1:1 NAT defined for the same VIP?  I changed to 1:1 for one of my mail servers and didn't remove the port forwards at the time I changed that over.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • J
          jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
          last edited by Sep 9, 2010, 1:53 PM

          NAT Reflection doesn't work for 1:1 NAT in 1.2.3, so probably not. It wouldn't hurt to remove those port forwards as a test though.

          Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

          Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

          Do not Chat/PM for help!

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • C
            cubsfan
            last edited by Sep 9, 2010, 2:02 PM

            Nope, that didn't make a difference.  Still getting the message every 10 minutes.  I will keep digging, doesn't seem to be hurting anything

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • E
              Efonnes
              last edited by Sep 12, 2010, 8:42 AM

              Do you have any services listening on those ports on that system?

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • ?
                Guest
                last edited by Sep 14, 2010, 6:31 AM

                inetd should not be running on pfSense at all AFAIK.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • E
                  Efonnes
                  last edited by Sep 14, 2010, 6:43 AM Sep 14, 2010, 6:40 AM

                  If NAT reflection is enabled then it does run inetd (there may be something it runs it for even if reflection is disabled).  19000-19999 is the range of ports that can be put in the inetd configuration by NAT reflection.  If something else is already listening on one or more of those ports, that would be why the message is coming up in the logs.  The number of ports used by inetd in pfSense 1.2.3 is approximately equal to the number of ports forwarded * number of non-WAN interfaces configured.  In 2.0, this is reduced to simply the number of ports forwarded.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • ?
                    Guest
                    last edited by Sep 14, 2010, 6:45 AM

                    Oh yeah, good call.  I think inetd spawns a bunch of netcat listeners to facilitate NAT reflection.  My bad, totally forgot about that.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • C
                      cubsfan
                      last edited by Sep 14, 2010, 1:16 PM

                      @Efonne:

                      Do you have any services listening on those ports on that system?

                      Nothing listening on those ports, and now the logs are ports 1926x so I'm not real sure what is happening here.  I don't use reflection since I have internal DNS setup so I'll just disable it for now and at least verify that is definitely the problem.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • E
                        Efonnes
                        last edited by Sep 15, 2010, 2:43 AM

                        I'm not really familiar with all of the bugs that might be in reflection on that version.  There could even be some duplicate port numbers in the configuration for inetd.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        11 out of 11
                        • First post
                          11/11
                          Last post
                        Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.
                          This community forum collects and processes your personal information.
                          consent.not_received