Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Made easy support for providers with flaky/unreliable checkip servers #306

Closed
troglobit opened this issue Mar 6, 2020 · 8 comments
Closed
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@troglobit
Copy link
Owner

In #305 @themiron came up with the brilliant idea to simplify using another checkip server for providers with a flaky/unreliable service.

  1. Update documentation with helpful hints and recommendations
  2. Add syntax sugar a-la checkip-server=default to tell inadyn to use its built-in default (ipify) instead of the provider provided one
  3. Possibly also detect bad checkip servers and warn in syslog?
@RMerl
Copy link
Contributor

RMerl commented Mar 6, 2020

For 3., maybe see if throttled ipcheck servers return something else than a 200 or a 30x HTTP code, and in which case act accordingly (fallback to default server perhaps?)

@troglobit
Copy link
Owner Author

@RMerl ah, great idea! I was thinking about checking for timeout, but just tracking the HTTP return codes (maybe with a counter and threshold?) is quite a bit more obvious :)

@RMerl
Copy link
Contributor

RMerl commented Mar 6, 2020

@themiron, did you get a particular HTTP response code when you were throttled in your test case?

@themiron
Copy link
Contributor

themiron commented Mar 6, 2020

For 2 - currently get_address_backend() uses cmd, iface and remote in order, seems easy to add last resort with default ip checker. after that, same default server can be removed from plugins for simplicity

@themiron
Copy link
Contributor

themiron commented Mar 6, 2020

@themiron, did you get a particular HTTP response code when you were throttled in your test case?

ARAIR yes, something either 4xxx or 5xx, not really sure.

@RMerl
Copy link
Contributor

RMerl commented Mar 6, 2020

So, code >=400 could be handled as a failure then.

@troglobit
Copy link
Owner Author

Agree to all above! Thank you guys for the awesome feedback :)

@themiron
Copy link
Contributor

themiron commented Mar 6, 2020

So, code >=400 could be handled as a failure then.

already is

@troglobit troglobit added this to the v2.7 milestone Apr 26, 2020
@troglobit troglobit modified the milestones: v2.7, v2.8 Apr 26, 2020
troglobit added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 31, 2021
@troglobit troglobit self-assigned this Jan 31, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants