On Tuesday 17 July 2012 11:57 PM, Juan Hernandez wrote:
On 07/17/2012 08:19 PM, Steve Gordon wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand@redhat.com> To: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@redhat.com> Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 3:27:02 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Proposed change in default port numbers
On 07/16/2012 09:21 PM, Andrew Cathrow wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand@redhat.com> To: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 2:44:40 PM Subject: [Engine-devel] Proposed change in default port numbers
Hello all,
In change http://gerrit.ovirt.org/6348 I am proposing to change the default port numbers used by the engine, in order to avoid conflicts with the default ports used by JBoss. To be clear though even if we moved to use port 6090 for http and 6091 for https we'd still have 80/443 available through the installer.
Correct, 80 and 443 will continue to be the default ports when using Apache as proxy in front of JBoss:
80 -> 80 (no change) 443 -> 443 (no change) 8080 -> 6090 8443 -> 6091 This is probably a stupid question, but what are the following ports used for:
8009 -> 6092 This port is used for the communication between the Apache web server and the JBoss application server using the AJP protocol. It doesn't need to be available outside of the machine.
The "Firewall Configuration" chapter of oVirt installation guide (http://wiki.ovirt.org/wiki/File:OVirt-3.0-Installation_Guide-en-US.pdf) says that ports 8006 through 8009 are required for network communication from "Administration Portal Clients" to "oVirt Engine".
4447 -> 6093 These port is used by the remoting capability of the application server: calling EJBs from external applications. We don't use it but it is required anyhow. It doesn't need to be available outside of the machine.
4712 -> 6094 4713 -> 6095 These two ports are used by the transaction manager inside JBoss. They don't need to be available outside of the machine.
So none of them needs a firewall rule to allow inbound traffic. I am proposing a different change to bind those ports to the loopback address so that they are not available even when the firewall is disabled:
I would disable them completely, but didn't find the way to do it yet.
As far as I know we don't have them listed anywhere in the documentation as requiring a firewall rule to allow them, should we? They don't require a firewall rule to allow incoming traffic. We could explain in the documentation that they are required, but only for communications internal to the machine.