starred/netboot.xyz

Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/netbootxyz/netboot.xyz.git synced 2026-04-25 23:25:54 +03:00

[GH-ISSUE #1409] Docker compose on docker hub not requesting all ports #1976

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-03-01 18:37:43 +03:00 by kerem · 9 comments

kerem commented

2026-03-01 18:37:43 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @geekmoto13 on GitHub (Feb 3, 2024).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/netbootxyz/netboot.xyz/issues/1409

Describe the bug
Ports 69 and 8080 are not being exposed when run on qnap devices
To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

Use container station 3 to build NetBoot.xyz using the docker image on docker hub. The ports have to be manually specified on the second page of configuration

Expected behavior
All ports requested for container do not show up with default config.

Screenshots

Additional context
This may also be a qnap specific problem but there is no way to upload files to the server for things like windows pxe

Originally created by @geekmoto13 on GitHub (Feb 3, 2024). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/netbootxyz/netboot.xyz/issues/1409 **Describe the bug** Ports 69 and 8080 are not being exposed when run on qnap devices **To Reproduce** Steps to reproduce the behavior: 1. Use container station 3 to build NetBoot.xyz using the docker image on docker hub. The ports have to be manually specified on the second page of configuration **Expected behavior** All ports requested for container do not show up with default config. **Screenshots**  **Additional context** This may also be a qnap specific problem but there is no way to upload files to the server for things like windows pxe

kerem

2026-03-01 18:37:43 +03:00

closed this issue
added the
bug
label

kerem commented

2026-03-01 18:37:44 +03:00

Author

Owner

@geekmoto13 commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024):

have confirmed this behavior also happens on self hosted docker instances and the ports have to manually specified

@geekmoto13 commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024): have confirmed this behavior also happens on self hosted docker instances and the ports have to manually specified

kerem commented

2026-03-01 18:37:44 +03:00

Author

Owner

@antonym commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024):

The services in the container are set to 80 (http), 3000 (webapp), and 69/udp (tftp). You'll need to set those in your configuration and make sure there isn't anything using those existing ports on your qnap. If you need to upload files, you would copy them to the assets folder you have defined or download them via the webapp.

@antonym commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024): The services in the container are set to 80 (http), 3000 (webapp), and 69/udp (tftp). You'll need to set those in your configuration and make sure there isn't anything using those existing ports on your qnap. If you need to upload files, you would copy them to the assets folder you have defined or download them via the webapp.

kerem commented

2026-03-01 18:37:44 +03:00

Author

Owner

@geekmoto13 commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024):

thats the thing, when the qnap and self hosted docker instances pull the compose, 3000 is the only one set, 8080 and 69 dont show up under the container config and have to be manually added in a NAT config for networking.

@geekmoto13 commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024): @ ![qnap default config netbootxyz](https://github.com/netbootxyz/netboot.xyz/assets/22135972/c83998b7-a36d-4140-b61e-65a8adb4e8f4) ![portqry results](https://github.com/netbootxyz/netboot.xyz/assets/22135972/101a862d-b282-436b-8d40-1f51906ae453) thats the thing, when the qnap and self hosted docker instances pull the compose, 3000 is the only one set, 8080 and 69 dont show up under the container config and have to be manually added in a NAT config for networking.

kerem commented

2026-03-01 18:37:44 +03:00

Author

Owner

@antonym commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024):

I'm guessing it's relying on the EXPOSE settings in the Dockerfile and currently I only have 3000 set. I'll enable EXPOSE for 80 and 69/udp as they seem to mainly just document which ports can be opened to docker but they can still overridden if needed.

https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/builder/#expose

@antonym commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024): I'm guessing it's relying on the EXPOSE settings in the Dockerfile and currently I only have 3000 set. I'll enable EXPOSE for 80 and 69/udp as they seem to mainly just document which ports can be opened to docker but they can still overridden if needed. https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/builder/#expose

kerem commented

2026-03-01 18:37:44 +03:00

Author

Owner

@geekmoto13 commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024):

sorry if my initial post didnt indicate that, I should have provided screenshots on the initial post. thats my bad.

@geekmoto13 commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024): sorry if my initial post didnt indicate that, I should have provided screenshots on the initial post. thats my bad.

kerem commented

2026-03-01 18:37:44 +03:00

Author

Owner

@antonym commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024):

No worries, screenshot helps for sure, so many implementations out there. Give the latest container a try once it deploys out and let me know if the behavior is working better.

@antonym commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024): No worries, screenshot helps for sure, so many implementations out there. Give the latest container a try once it deploys out and let me know if the behavior is working better.

kerem commented

2026-03-01 18:37:44 +03:00

Author

Owner

@geekmoto13 commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024):

yeah the qnap device seems to have pulled the new config and has all the ports listed at least, qnap has a strange docker implementation, but it now seems to work as intended and is responding to portqry

this has now been fixed

@geekmoto13 commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024): yeah the qnap device seems to have pulled the new config and has all the ports listed at least, qnap has a strange docker implementation, but it now seems to work as intended and is responding to portqry this has now been fixed

kerem commented

2026-03-01 18:37:44 +03:00

Author

Owner

@antonym commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024):

Sweet, I see them listed in docker inspect:

 "NetworkSettings": {
            "Ports": {
                "3000/tcp": [
                    {
                        "HostIp": "0.0.0.0",
                        "HostPort": "3000"
                    },
                    {
                        "HostIp": "::",
                        "HostPort": "3000"
                    }
                ],
                "69/udp": [
                    {
                        "HostIp": "0.0.0.0",
                        "HostPort": "69"
                    },
                    {
                        "HostIp": "::",
                        "HostPort": "69"
                    }
                ],
                "80/tcp": [
                    {
                        "HostIp": "0.0.0.0",
                        "HostPort": "8080"
                    },
                    {
                        "HostIp": "::",
                        "HostPort": "8080"
                    }
                ]
            },

@antonym commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024): Sweet, I see them listed in docker inspect: ``` "NetworkSettings": { "Ports": { "3000/tcp": [ { "HostIp": "0.0.0.0", "HostPort": "3000" }, { "HostIp": "::", "HostPort": "3000" } ], "69/udp": [ { "HostIp": "0.0.0.0", "HostPort": "69" }, { "HostIp": "::", "HostPort": "69" } ], "80/tcp": [ { "HostIp": "0.0.0.0", "HostPort": "8080" }, { "HostIp": "::", "HostPort": "8080" } ] },

kerem commented

2026-03-01 18:37:44 +03:00

Author

Owner

@geekmoto13 commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024):

Also what I meant with not being able to get stuff on
To the server is that the container is so isolated (likely qnap specific logic) that the container isn’t allowed to access any files on the host system to allow the user to pull in files. I have gotten a container setup on a proxmox box after my qnap nas nearly took down my network during a reboot. Might be an idea to implement a built in ftp client to allow file management for devices that isolate containers but will need to do some testing with proxmox to see how far that extends if it’s a docker thing or just qnap specific

@geekmoto13 commented on GitHub (Feb 4, 2024): Also what I meant with not being able to get stuff on To the server is that the container is so isolated (likely qnap specific logic) that the container isn’t allowed to access any files on the host system to allow the user to pull in files. I have gotten a container setup on a proxmox box after my qnap nas nearly took down my network during a reboot. Might be an idea to implement a built in ftp client to allow file management for devices that isolate containers but will need to do some testing with proxmox to see how far that extends if it’s a docker thing or just qnap specific

No milestone

No project

No assignees

1 participant

Notifications

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference

starred/netboot.xyz#1976

No description provided.

Rows
Columns