Re: ddns patches for desec.io provider support

[Stefan Schantl <stefan.schantl@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5625 bytes --]

Hello Jonas,

thanks for the patch, your changes already have been merged into DDNS.

http://git.ipfire.org/?p=ddns.git;a=commit;h=d1a5be9e002a6c2b6757ef70a1
decb5c4a20e404

Best regards,

-Stefan

> Hello,
> 
> not from my end. So this is ready to be merged with ddns if Stefan
> approves.
> 
> -Michael
> 
> On Thu, 2015-10-08 at 21:56 +0200, Jonas wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > it has been a while -- are there any remaining
> > issues with the patch?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Jonas
> > 
> > On 08/31/2015 06:37 PM, Michael Tremer wrote:
> > > Hi Jonas,
> > > 
> > > thank you for taking the time. This patch looks good to me.
> > > 
> > > Acked-By: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2015-08-31 at 18:11 +0200, Jonas wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > sorry for the delay. The desec.io DDNS provider
> > > > class is now implemented analog to
> > > > 
> > > > http://git.ipfire.org/?p=ddns.git;a=blob;f=src/ddns/providers.p
> > > > y;
> > > > h=6a
> > > > c5
> > > > 56444553fbf0d6e8b23854fe228ad6c81fc5;hb=HEAD#l805
> > > > 
> > > > for simultaneous IPv4/v6 updates as suggested by Michael.
> > > > 
> > > > Registering IPv4 and IPv6 addresses with the update.dedyn.io
> > > > server was successfully tested. Explicit unregistering will
> > > > still require updates on the server side.
> > > Most of the providers don't implement that and that is okay.
> > > 
> > > > Find attached the patches for src/ddns/providers.py
> > > > and ddns.conf.sample
> > > Stefan, would you please merge these patches after giving them
> > > good
> > > testing?
> > > 
> > > @Jonas: If you want to promote out little ddns client, it will
> > > run
> > > on
> > > other systems as well, not just IPFire. Maybe it needs some
> > > slight
> > > modification on the one or the other distribution, but I think it
> > > is de
> > > finitely worth being more widely used.
> > > 
> > > Best,
> > > -Michael
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -Jonas
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 07/31/2015 12:09 PM, Michael Tremer wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 01:51 +0200, Jonas wrote:
> > > > > > Hello Michael,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > in case of both IPv4 and IPv6 connection, the
> > > > > > query string in the update URL may contain
> > > > > > both a "myip" and a "myipv6" key simultaneously.
> > > > > > (for single protocol updates, "myip" may be used
> > > > > > for either protocol)
> > > > > That is actually a good idea to do, but that is not included
> > > > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > reference documentation of the DynDNS protocol.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We have implemented this for an other provider so you can
> > > > > simply
> > > > > copy
> > > > > those two lines and you are done:
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://git.ipfire.org/?p=ddns.git;a=blob;f=src/ddns/providers
> > > > > .p
> > > > > y;h=
> > > > > 6ac5
> > > > > 56444553fbf0d6e8b23854fe228ad6c81fc5;hb=HEAD#l805
> > > > > 
> > > > > > As far as i understand the ddns sources, simultaneous
> > > > > > updates are not possible.
> > > > > They are. Just like the example above or this:
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://git.ipfire.org/?p=ddns.git;a=blob;f=src/ddns/providers
> > > > > .p
> > > > > y;h=
> > > > > 6ac5
> > > > > 56444553fbf0d6e8b23854fe228ad6c81fc5;hb=HEAD#l1085
> > > > > 
> > > > > Most providers just require sending two requests which is not
> > > > > the
> > > > > most
> > > > > preferable option, but what can you do?!
> > > > > 
> > > > > > This may be resolved on the server side in the future.
> > > > > What is probably quite important is to properly clear any
> > > > > IPv4
> > > > > or
> > > > > IPv6
> > > > > addresses when a system does not have connectivity to either
> > > > > one
> > > > > any
> > > > > more.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > A possible workaround could be to always include
> > > > > > both addresses in the update URL, independent of
> > > > > > the "protocol" argument of the update method.
> > > > > Will you send me an updated patch then?
> > > > > 
> > > > > -Michael
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > Jonas
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 07/30/2015 01:00 PM, Michael Tremer wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello Jonas,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > thank you very much for sending in this patch. It looks
> > > > > > > really 
> > > > > > > good.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I was just wondering if it wouldn't be better to
> > > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > IPv6
> > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > properly. As far as I understand it, ddns will send two
> > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > and 
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > second one will delete the updated data from the first
> > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > case 
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > a system having connectivity to the IPv6 and IPv4
> > > > > > > Internet,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > DNS
> > > > > > > record will just point to the IPv4 address. Correct me if
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > am 
> > > > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > here. Now it only works if a system has either IPv6 or
> > > > > > > IPv4
> > > > > > > connectivity.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Let me know if we can solve this problem.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > -Michael
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 20:13 +0200, Jonas wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > i'd like to add support for the desec.io
> > > > > > > > dyndns service.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > It is DynDNS 2 compatible, so the patch is small.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > Jonas

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]