Ddev: "Address family not supported by protocol", web container won't start

Created on 11 Apr 2020  路  4Comments  路  Source: drud/ddev

Describe the bug
Trying to start my project, Nginx dies about the address format.

ddev start

Starting glamanate.com...
Building db
Building web
Recreating ddev-glamanate.com-db ... done
Recreating ddev-glamanate.com-web ... done

Starting ddev-router ... done

Failed to start glamanate.com: web container failed: log=, err=container exited, please use 'ddev logs -s web` to find out why it failed

Logs

2020-04-11 14:20:51,005 INFO spawned: 'nginx' with pid 1726
2020-04-11 14:20:51,005 INFO success: mailhog entered RUNNING state, process has stayed up for > than 1 seconds (startsecs)
nginx: [emerg] socket() [::]:80 failed (97: Address family not supported by protocol)
2020-04-11 14:20:51,029 INFO exited: nginx (exit status 1; not expected)
2020-04-11 14:20:53,032 INFO spawned: 'nginx' with pid 1749
nginx: [emerg] socket() [::]:80 failed (97: Address family not supported by protocol)
2020-04-11 14:20:53,047 INFO exited: nginx (exit status 1; not expected)
2020-04-11 14:20:56,057 INFO spawned: 'nginx' with pid 1781
nginx: [emerg] socket() [::]:80 failed (97: Address family not supported by protocol)
2020-04-11 14:20:56,074 INFO exited: nginx (exit status 1; not expected)
2020-04-11 14:20:57,081 INFO gave up: nginx entered FATAL state, too many start retries too quickly

Version and configuration information (please complete the following information):
macOS Catalina 10.15.4

Docker

Client: Docker Engine - Community
 Version:           19.03.8
 API version:       1.40
 Go version:        go1.12.17
 Git commit:        afacb8b
 Built:             Wed Mar 11 01:21:11 2020
 OS/Arch:           darwin/amd64
 Experimental:      false

Server: Docker Engine - Community
 Engine:
  Version:          19.03.8
  API version:      1.40 (minimum version 1.12)
  Go version:       go1.12.17
  Git commit:       afacb8b
  Built:            Wed Mar 11 01:29:16 2020
  OS/Arch:          linux/amd64
  Experimental:     true
 containerd:
  Version:          v1.2.13
  GitCommit:        7ad184331fa3e55e52b890ea95e65ba581ae3429
 runc:
  Version:          1.0.0-rc10
  GitCommit:        dc9208a3303feef5b3839f4323d9beb36df0a9dd
 docker-init:
  Version:          0.18.0
  GitCommit:        fec3683

ddev

DDEV-Local version  v1.13.1
commit              v1.13.1
db                  drud/ddev-dbserver-mariadb-10.2:v1.13.0
dba                 phpmyadmin/phpmyadmin:5
ddev-ssh-agent      drud/ddev-ssh-agent:v1.13.0
docker              19.03.8
docker-compose      1.26.0-rc3
os                  darwin
router              drud/ddev-router:v1.13.0
web                 drud/ddev-webserver:v1.13.1

Most helpful comment

This is already in Edge release v1.14.0-alpha1, and will be in full v1.14 release in the next week or two. As @mglaman says you can also use it with v1.13 and earlier by changing the webimage, but don't forget to remove that when you upgrade.

Note that this is a bug in Docker Edge 2.2.3.0, and they'll have a fix for it before long. It's just that we didn't actually need to have the ipv6 usage in there in the first place.

Closing, I think people will find this OK even if closed. Thanks for reporting @mglaman

All 4 comments

This looks like the problem is about IPv6 support? I don't get why this stopped.

So I found: https://docs.docker.com/config/daemon/ipv6/

Note: IPv6 networking is only supported on Docker daemons running on Linux hosts.

Oh, I just found: https://github.com/drud/ddev/pull/2145

For folks hitting this via search: @rfay has a fix until this is released:

Note that you can use the image that works with webimage: drud/ddev-webserver:20200402_remove_ipv6 in your project's config.yaml

This is already in Edge release v1.14.0-alpha1, and will be in full v1.14 release in the next week or two. As @mglaman says you can also use it with v1.13 and earlier by changing the webimage, but don't forget to remove that when you upgrade.

Note that this is a bug in Docker Edge 2.2.3.0, and they'll have a fix for it before long. It's just that we didn't actually need to have the ipv6 usage in there in the first place.

Closing, I think people will find this OK even if closed. Thanks for reporting @mglaman

Was this page helpful?
0 / 5 - 0 ratings