Re: [HTCondor-users] CCB private address

[Raphael KleinemÃhl <kleinemuehl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello again,

>      I'm not sure why your schedd is on port 9619.  Was that deliberate
> for some reason?

Yes, this was indeed deliberate. If both containers are started on the 
same machine they will fight for 9618 otherwise.


>      I can't tell from the log fragment you posted, but if the
> negotiator can't connect to its own public IP, you'll just need to fix
> that (or use TCP_FORWARDING_HOST to choose an IP everyone in your pool
> can connect to).

You're right, this is a problem with docker networking that I was not 
yet able to fix. For what it's worth: 192.168.56.1 is the 
TCP_FORWARDING_HOST and 172.20.0.2 is docker internal. But it seems to 
be a problem to connect to 192.168.56.1 from inside the container.


>      The private network address is included so that daemons which are
> on the same private network can bypass CCB and talk to each other
> directly.  There should never be a reason to contact a CCB on its
> private network address; by definition, its public address is reachable
> from anyone who wants to use it as a broker.  (The code removes the
> private network address on purpose;  not removing the private network
> name is just a confusing oversight.)

Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up. When I saw the private network name 
being advertised I thought it might help me get around the above problem.
But now I have just set up a separate CCB, which also works fine.
At some point I will find this docker problem, but for now everything works.

So again, thanks for the reply,
  Raphael