26 Apr
2022
26 Apr
'22
11:03 p.m.
Johnny,
Funny you should say that.
As soon as you responded below, I had a look at bridge.c. Basically it
looks like I'd just need to do a cfork(). That child process would wake
up ever so often and do a gethostbyname() on each name field in the
BRIDGE structure and compare that IP address with what was in the
corresponding addr field. Any difference would mean it would send the
parent a SIGHUP to reparse the bridge.conf file, which would rebuild the
BRIDGE structure with the correct IP addresses.
If we wanted to keep the accumulated totals (rcount, zcount, Etc.)
correct for SIGUSR1, then maybe those could be saved before the SIGHUP
and added back after this was complete.
That doesn't sound too awful, unless I'm missing something (haven't
really gotten into that code for a year or two).
--T
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 4/26/22 3:45 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Well. The thing is, this was/is a listening socket. So there is no
reconnecting. It's just about binding.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On 2022-04-26 19:40, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> PyDECnet rechecks the name resolution every hour. It doesn't close
> existing connections, but if a node moves and its DNS entry is
> updated to reflect that, PyDECnet will find it again and reconnect
> within an hour.
>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> On Apr 26, 2022, at 1:22 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)softjar.se> wrote:
>>
>> The problem is that dynamic dns don't necessarily solve any
>> problems. The address is bound at start, and if the resolution in
>> DNS changes at some later point, that won't get reflected unless
>> pydecnet would redo the name lookup, close and reopen the listening
>> socket bound to the new address.
>