I try to run 3 containers: nginx and two containers with flask-uwsgi but one for staging one for live.
In docker i create network:
docker network create --attachable --subnet 1.1.1.0/29 some-network
And run containers like:
# nginx
docker run -d --rm \
--net some-network --ip 1.1.1.2 \
-p 80:80 -p 443:443 \
--name my-nginx "$REGISTRY/$IMAGE"
# flask+uwsgi on :8080 (live)
docker run -d --rm \
--net some-network --ip 1.1.1.3 \
-p 8080:8080 \
--name flask-live "$REGISTRY/$IMAGE"
And i have default server config with upstreams:
upstream flask_live {
server 1.1.1.3:8080;
}
upstream flask_dev {
server 1.1.1.4:8080;
}
server {
listen 80;
server_name hostname.com;
location / {
include uwsgi_params;
uwsgi_pass flask_live;
}
}
server {
listen 80;
server_name develop.hostname.com;
location / {
include uwsgi_params;
uwsgi_pass flask_dev;
}
}
But when i try to run third container with flask develop like:
docker run -d --rm \
--net some-network --ip 1.1.1.4 \
-p 8080:8080 \
--name flask-live "$REGISTRY/$IMAGE"
I get error: Bind for 0.0.0.0:8080 failed: port is already allocated
I don't understand why port allocated if i try to publish on 1.1.1.0/29 subnet
I read docker docs about networking, I google stuff but I am just blind or slow but i don't understand how to "isolate" container or something like that.
-p 8080:8080 is equal to -p 0.0.0.0:8080:8080 where:
0.0.0.0 - address on the host to redirect from
first 8080 - port to redirect from
second 8080 - port of container (inside docker network)
So, your error message says that you cannot bind to port 8080 of the host (not your internal docker network).
This command allows you to access your container from host network (eg. from localhost:8080 to 8080 port of your container). Basically, it uses iptables to redirect packets from one network to another. So, when you call -p 8080:8080, it will redirect packets from port 8080 to your first container and when you call the same command for second container it fails, because port 8080 is already in use. You cannot you the single port to redirect to both containers at the same time.
Based on your description, you don't even need to publish ports to your flask-uwsgi containers, because you have a nginx proxy, which will allow you to access them based on host names. These ports will still be available inside your Docker network, you just won't publish then to your host OS.
If you still need to access your flask-uwsgi containers directly (without nginx), then you can publish them to different ports. Eg. first - -p 8081:8080, second - -p 8082:8080).
The docker run -p option opens a port on the host that forwards to a port in the container. That generally means you can't run two containers that have the same first -p port number, and that first port number also can't conflict with a non-container process running on the host.
Separately, Docker maintains its own networking layer. It's useful to know that, as an implementation detail, each container happens to have its own IP address, so you can run processes in separate containers that each listen on port 8080 and they won't conflict. You don't need a -p option to do this.
So: connections from outside Docker...
Use the host's DNS name or IP address
Use the first docker run -p port number (which must be unique across all containers and host processes)
The process inside the container must listen on the second -p port number and the special 0.0.0.0 "everywhere" IP address
Connections between containers...
Must be on the same docker run --net network
Use the other container's docker run --name as a DNS name
Use the port number the destination container's process is listening on; it also must be listening on the special 0.0.0.0 "everywhere" IP address
Ignore docker run -p port mappings
Notice that neither of these cases actually needs to know the container-private IP address, and it's not usually useful to specify these or look them up. In your example I would delete the docker network create --subnet option and the docker run --ip options.
Running docker for Mac 17.06.0 I have created a docker file that creates an image of Apache server. Notice it exposes port 80.
FROM ubuntu:16.04
RUN apt-get update
RUN apt-get install -y apache2
ADD index.html /var/www/html/
CMD /usr/sbin/apache2ctl -D FOREGROUND
EXPOSE 80
In the same folder of the Dockerfile I have created a simple index.httml file.
Then I built and ran it using
docker build -t webserver .
docker run -d webserver
I took the IP address of the running container using
docker inspect [container_name] | grep -i IPAddress
and when I curl
curl 172.17.0.2
I get no answer.
I do get an answer when running -p 80:80 and using localhost in the curl command.
curl localhost
But I want to understand why can't I curl the container IP.
Questions:
How can I get an answer for my curl?
I understand I can't ping my container when using docker for Mac (link).
Can I telnet it just to verify that the port is exposed?
Can I SSH it?
On Docker for Mac the Docker engine is running inside a small VM using Hyper-V. As consequence, the ip 172.17.0.2 is valid only inside that VM and not on your host system. See https://docs.docker.com/docker-for-mac/docker-toolbox/#the-docker-for-mac-environment for more details and comparison to other VM concepts like Docker Machine.
When you run your Docker container, you need to bind a local port to the container like so:
docker run -d -p 80:80 webserver
where the first 80 is the port on the localhost and the second is the port on the container that is exposed. Just having the port exposed in the dockerfile is not enough to access it from the localhost.
How does Docker handle docker run -d --net=host <image> if I run 2 images that have the exact same port EXPOSEd?
For example, if I run:
$ docker run -d --net=host nginx
$ docker run -d --net=host nginx
$ docker run -d --net=host httpd
# I now have 3 containers running, all of which EXPOSE port 80
# what does the following return?
$ curl http://localhost:80/
What response do I get? The first nginx? The second nginx? The Apache httpd? And how does Docker manage it under the covers? There is no NAT involved since I did --net=host
Well, I have my answer. Just like a process that tries to bind to a port already in use will fail with EADDRINUSE, so too will a container that tries to bind to a port already in use on the host if --net=host.
Created a apache webserver as Docker container but want to access it on windows os browser as localhost.
I can access the webserver with boot2docker private ip address which is 192.168.59.103 but would like to access the webserver as localhost i.e 127.0.0.1.
Following is my Docker Container setup
Running Boot2docker on Oracle VM
Exposed ports : "EXPOSE 80 443" in docker file
Command used to create Docker File :
docker run --net=host --name=webserver1 -v /home/data:/data/www/www.samplewebserber.com -v `password`:/scripts -d folder/serverfolder /scripts/run.sh
boot2docker actually created a vm with linux core in your Mac OS with VirtualBox, and 192.168.59.103 is the ip for that vm.
So you need to set a port forward for that vm
Notice that in Mac OS, port 80 need a high permission, so I use 8080 instead in this example.
If you want to access localhost to ports 80 and 443 you need to perform two actions:
First, when you create your container, you must specify the port mapping specifically. If you run docker run with -P option, the ports set in dockerfile's EXPOSE will be expose to random ports in the Boot2Docker environment. If you want to map it specifically you must run:
docker run \
--net=host \
--name=webserver1 \
-v /home/data:/data/www/www.samplewebserber.com \
-v `password`:/scripts \
-d -p 80:80 -p 443:443 \
folder/serverfolder \
/scripts/run.sh
And in order to map Boot2Docker port to your host environment, as Joe Niland link suggested, you must do a port forwarding using SSH tunneling:
boot2docker ssh -L 80:localhost:80
boot2docker ssh -L 443:localhost:443
You can change to port mappings if you wish.
I'm trying to create a Docker container that acts like a full-on virtual machine. I know I can use the EXPOSE instruction inside a Dockerfile to expose a port, and I can use the -p flag with docker run to assign ports, but once a container is actually running, is there a command to open/map additional ports live?
For example, let's say I have a Docker container that is running sshd. Someone else using the container ssh's in and installs httpd. Is there a way to expose port 80 on the container and map it to port 8080 on the host, so that people can visit the web server running in the container, without restarting it?
You cannot do this via Docker, but you can access the container's un-exposed port from the host machine.
If you have a container with something running on its port 8000, you can run
wget http://container_ip:8000
To get the container's IP address, run the 2 commands:
docker ps
docker inspect container_name | grep IPAddress
Internally, Docker shells out to call iptables when you run an image, so maybe some variation on this will work.
To expose the container's port 8000 on your localhost's port 8001:
iptables -t nat -A DOCKER -p tcp --dport 8001 -j DNAT --to-destination 172.17.0.19:8000
One way you can work this out is to setup another container with the port mapping you want, and compare the output of the iptables-save command (though, I had to remove some of the other options that force traffic to go via the docker proxy).
NOTE: this is subverting docker, so should be done with the awareness that it may well create blue smoke.
OR
Another alternative is to look at the (new? post 0.6.6?) -P option - which will use random host ports, and then wire those up.
OR
With 0.6.5, you could use the LINKs feature to bring up a new container that talks to the existing one, with some additional relaying to that container's -p flags? (I have not used LINKs yet.)
OR
With docker 0.11? you can use docker run --net host .. to attach your container directly to the host's network interfaces (i.e., net is not namespaced) and thus all ports you open in the container are exposed.
Here's what I would do:
Commit the live container.
Run the container again with the new image, with ports open (I'd recommend mounting a shared volume and opening the ssh port as well)
sudo docker ps
sudo docker commit <containerid> <foo/live>
sudo docker run -i -p 22 -p 8000:80 -m /data:/data -t <foo/live> /bin/bash
While you cannot expose a new port of an existing container, you can start a new container in the same Docker network and get it to forward traffic to the original container.
# docker run \
--rm \
-p $PORT:1234 \
verb/socat \
TCP-LISTEN:1234,fork \
TCP-CONNECT:$TARGET_CONTAINER_IP:$TARGET_CONTAINER_PORT
Worked Example
Launch a web-service that listens on port 80, but do not expose its internal port 80 (oops!):
# docker run -ti mkodockx/docker-pastebin # Forgot to expose PORT 80!
Find its Docker network IP:
# docker inspect 63256f72142a | grep IPAddress
"IPAddress": "172.17.0.2",
Launch verb/socat with port 8080 exposed, and get it to forward TCP traffic to that IP's port 80:
# docker run --rm -p 8080:1234 verb/socat TCP-LISTEN:1234,fork TCP-CONNECT:172.17.0.2:80
You can now access pastebin on http://localhost:8080/, and your requests goes to socat:1234 which forwards it to pastebin:80, and the response travels the same path in reverse.
IPtables hacks don't work, at least on Docker 1.4.1.
The best way would be to run another container with the exposed port and relay with socat. This is what I've done to (temporarily) connect to the database with SQLPlus:
docker run -d --name sqlplus --link db:db -p 1521:1521 sqlplus
Dockerfile:
FROM debian:7
RUN apt-get update && \
apt-get -y install socat && \
apt-get clean
USER nobody
CMD socat -dddd TCP-LISTEN:1521,reuseaddr,fork TCP:db:1521
Here's another idea. Use SSH to do the port forwarding; this has the benefit of also working in OS X (and probably Windows) when your Docker host is a VM.
docker exec -it <containterid> ssh -R5432:localhost:5432 <user>#<hostip>
To add to the accepted answer iptables solution, I had to run two more commands on the host to open it to the outside world.
HOST> iptables -t nat -A DOCKER -p tcp --dport 443 -j DNAT --to-destination 172.17.0.2:443
HOST> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE -p tcp --source 172.17.0.2 --destination 172.17.0.2 --dport https
HOST> iptables -A DOCKER -j ACCEPT -p tcp --destination 172.17.0.2 --dport https
Note: I was opening port https (443), my docker internal IP was 172.17.0.2
Note 2: These rules and temporrary and will only last until the container is restarted
I had to deal with this same issue and was able to solve it without stopping any of my running containers. This is a solution up-to-date as of February 2016, using Docker 1.9.1. Anyway, this answer is a detailed version of #ricardo-branco's answer, but in more depth for new users.
In my scenario, I wanted to temporarily connect to MySQL running in a container, and since other application containers are linked to it, stopping, reconfiguring, and re-running the database container was a non-starter.
Since I'd like to access the MySQL database externally (from Sequel Pro via SSH tunneling), I'm going to use port 33306 on the host machine. (Not 3306, just in case there is an outer MySQL instance running.)
About an hour of tweaking iptables proved fruitless, even though:
Step by step, here's what I did:
mkdir db-expose-33306
cd db-expose-33306
vim Dockerfile
Edit dockerfile, placing this inside:
# Exposes port 3306 on linked "db" container, to be accessible at host:33306
FROM ubuntu:latest # (Recommended to use the same base as the DB container)
RUN apt-get update && \
apt-get -y install socat && \
apt-get clean
USER nobody
EXPOSE 33306
CMD socat -dddd TCP-LISTEN:33306,reuseaddr,fork TCP:db:3306
Then build the image:
docker build -t your-namespace/db-expose-33306 .
Then run it, linking to your running container. (Use -d instead of -rm to keep it in the background until explicitly stopped and removed. I only want it running temporarily in this case.)
docker run -it --rm --name=db-33306 --link the_live_db_container:db -p 33306:33306 your-namespace/db-expose-33306
You can use SSH to create a tunnel and expose your container in your host.
You can do it in both ways, from container to host and from host to container. But you need a SSH tool like OpenSSH in both (client in one and server in another).
For example, in the container, you can do
$ yum install -y openssh openssh-server.x86_64
service sshd restart
Stopping sshd: [FAILED]
Generating SSH2 RSA host key: [ OK ]
Generating SSH1 RSA host key: [ OK ]
Generating SSH2 DSA host key: [ OK ]
Starting sshd: [ OK ]
$ passwd # You need to set a root password..
You can find the container IP address from this line (in the container):
$ ifconfig eth0 | grep "inet addr" | sed 's/^[^:]*:\([^ ]*\).*/\1/g'
172.17.0.2
Then in the host, you can just do:
sudo ssh -NfL 80:0.0.0.0:80 root#172.17.0.2
Based on Robm's answer I have created a Docker image and a Bash script called portcat.
Using portcat, you can easily map multiple ports to an existing Docker container. An example using the (optional) Bash script:
curl -sL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/archan937/portcat/master/script/install | sudo bash
portcat my-awesome-container 3456 4444:8080
And there you go! Portcat is mapping:
port 3456 to my-awesome-container:3456
port 4444 to my-awesome-container:8080
Please note that the Bash script is optional, the following commands:
ipAddress=$(docker inspect my-awesome-container | grep IPAddress | grep -o '[0-9]\{1,3\}\(\.[0-9]\{1,3\}\)\{3\}' | head -n 1)
docker run -p 3456:3456 -p 4444:4444 --name=alpine-portcat -it pmelegend/portcat:latest $ipAddress 3456 4444:8080
I hope portcat will come in handy for you guys. Cheers!
There is a handy HAProxy wrapper.
docker run -it -p LOCALPORT:PROXYPORT --rm --link TARGET_CONTAINER:EZNAME -e "BACKEND_HOST=EZNAME" -e "BACKEND_PORT=PROXYPORT" demandbase/docker-tcp-proxy
This creates an HAProxy to the target container. easy peasy.
Here are some solutions:
https://forums.docker.com/t/how-to-expose-port-on-running-container/3252/12
The solution to mapping port while running the container.
docker run -d --net=host myvnc
that will expose and map the port automatically to your host
In case no answer is working for someone - check if your target container is already running in docker network:
CONTAINER=my-target-container
docker inspect $CONTAINER | grep NetworkMode
"NetworkMode": "my-network-name",
Save it for later in the variable $NET_NAME:
NET_NAME=$(docker inspect --format '{{.HostConfig.NetworkMode}}' $CONTAINER)
If yes, you should run the proxy container in the same network.
Next look up the alias for the container:
docker inspect $CONTAINER | grep -A2 Aliases
"Aliases": [
"my-alias",
"23ea4ea42e34a"
Save it for later in the variable $ALIAS:
ALIAS=$(docker inspect --format '{{index .NetworkSettings.Networks "'$NET_NAME'" "Aliases" 0}}' $CONTAINER)
Now run socat in a container in the network $NET_NAME to bridge to the $ALIASed container's exposed (but not published) port:
docker run \
--detach --name my-new-proxy \
--net $NET_NAME \
--publish 8080:1234 \
alpine/socat TCP-LISTEN:1234,fork TCP-CONNECT:$ALIAS:80
You can use an overlay network like Weave Net, which will assign a unique IP address to each container and implicitly expose all the ports to every container part of the network.
Weave also provides host network integration. It is disabled by default but, if you want to also access the container IP addresses (and all its ports) from the host, you can run simply run weave expose.
Full disclosure: I work at Weaveworks.
It's not possible to do live port mapping but there are multiple ways you can give a Docker container what amounts to a real interface like a virtual machine would have.
Macvlan Interfaces
Docker now includes a Macvlan network driver. This attaches a Docker network to a "real world" interface and allows you to assign that networks addresses directly to the container (like a virtual machines bridged mode).
docker network create \
-d macvlan \
--subnet=172.16.86.0/24 \
--gateway=172.16.86.1 \
-o parent=eth0 pub_net
pipework can also map a real interface into a container or setup a sub interface in older versions of Docker.
Routing IP's
If you have control of the network you can route additional networks to your Docker host for use in the containers.
Then you assign that network to the containers and setup your Docker host to route the packets via the docker network.
Shared host interface
The --net host option allows the host interface to be shared into a container but this is probably not a good setup for running multiple containers on the one host due to the shared nature.
Read Ricardo's response first. This worked for me.
However, there exists a scenario where this won't work if the running container was kicked off using docker-compose. This is because docker-compose (I'm running docker 1.17) creates a new network. The way to address this scenario would be
docker network ls
Then append the following
docker run -d --name sqlplus --link db:db -p 1521:1521 sqlplus --net network_name
docker run -i --expose=22 b5593e60c33b bash
ref: https://forums.docker.com/t/how-to-expose-port-on-running-container/3252/5
this may help you