On 01/03/14 12:59, Evgeni Golov wrote: > Hi Tomasz, > > just a note, the Debian BTS does not automatically CC the bug-submitter, > so I did not get your mail first.
Hi Evgeni, sorry for that. > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 07:51:56PM +0100, Tomasz Buchert wrote: > > It is however present in "journalctl": > > Ups, didn't look in there. > > > Feb 25 13:41:49 debian miredo-checkconf[1229]: Invalid host name > > “teredo-debian.remlab.net” at line 6: Temporary failure in name resolution > > Feb 25 13:41:49 debian miredo-checkconf[1229]: Server address not specified > > Feb 25 13:41:49 debian miredo-checkconf[1229]: Could not check config. > > Feb 25 13:41:49 debian miredo-checkconf[1229]: Fatal configuration error > > Feb 25 13:41:49 debian systemd[1]: miredo.service: control process exited, > > code=exited status=255 > > Feb 25 13:41:49 debian systemd[1]: Failed to start Teredo IPv6 tunneling. > > Feb 25 13:41:49 debian systemd[1]: Unit miredo.service entered failed state. > > > > Hmmm, we should inform systemd guys, I think. > > > > But, going back to our bug, it is caused by the missing DNS resolution at > > an early > > phase of the boot. "After=network.target" is apparently not enough to have > > DNS... > > Well, network.target asures to have working "network", which may be as much > as 127.0.0.1. > > > I can't find any information how to ensure DNS resolution in systemd. > > The workaround for now is to replace name in miredo config with its IP > > address > > (it worked for me at least). > > > > The real solution is either to: > > 1) find a way to ensure DNS resolution via systemd (I think it may be > > impossible) > > 2) add a loop with timeout inside miredo checkconf that waits for DNS > > to finish completely (presupposing that it's just a matter of time) > > > > I'll try to find 1), but ultimately I may go with 2). > > I'd go for not trying to resolve the DNS that hard. Imagine I boot my laptop > initially in an environment, where I do not have (a real) network at all. > 2) would mean you'll loop for ever. How would miredo (without checkconfig) > behave here? It would start and periodically wait to get a connection? That's > at least what I would have expected (did not read the code). Yes, I prepared a patch to "not resolve DNS that hard" and informed the author of miredo. We are still discussing details of it. And yes, miredo (but not its conf. check) handles such problems well. > > So iff miredo would do this, I'd suggest changing checkconfig to ignore DNS > errors as non-fatal and allow miredo to start and connect at some later point. Exactly. :) I'll let you know when the bug is fixed. > > Regards > Evgeni Cheers, Tomasz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
