Can't ssh into sources

Can't ssh into sources

[Elfyn McBratney]

Hi,

Just wondering if there's something up with ssh on sources as I haven't been
able to connect for a couple of hours (~12PM GMT), though everything else seems
responsive.

Elfyn

-- 
Elfyn McBratney, EMCB  |  http://www.nongnu.org/wwwauth/
http://www.emcb.co.uk  |  http://www.emcb.co.uk/webauth/
elfyn@emcb.co.uk       |  wwwauth-users AT nongnu DOT org

Re: Can't ssh into sources

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> Just wondering if there's something up with ssh on sources as I haven't
> been able to connect for a couple of hours (~12PM GMT), though everything
> else seems responsive.

Works fine for me.  Yesterday the box was moved and the IP address
changed; the latter now needs to propagate through the Internet:

  % host -t a gcc.gnu.org
  gcc.gnu.org             A       67.72.78.213

(Your mail servers and possibly http-proxy might have the new address
already, why your workstation has cached the old one.)

Gerald
-- 
Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry)   gerald@pfeifer.com   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/

Re: Can't ssh into sources

[Elfyn McBratney]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> > Just wondering if there's something up with ssh on sources as I haven't
> > been able to connect for a couple of hours (~12PM GMT), though everything
> > else seems responsive.
>
> Works fine for me.  Yesterday the box was moved and the IP address
> changed; the latter now needs to propagate through the Internet:
>
>   % host -t a gcc.gnu.org
>   gcc.gnu.org             A       67.72.78.213
>
> (Your mail servers and possibly http-proxy might have the new address
> already, why your workstation has cached the old one.)

Looks correct from here.

  Non-authoritative answer:
  Server:  resolver2.svr.pol.co.uk
  Address:  195.92.195.95

  Name:    sources.redhat.com
  Address:  67.72.78.213

  Non-authoritative answer:
  Server:  resolver2.svr.pol.co.uk
  Address:  195.92.195.95

  Name:    gcc.gnu.org
  Address:  67.72.78.213

I forgot to mention that it's a connection timeout.

Elfyn

-- 
Elfyn McBratney, EMCB  |  http://www.nongnu.org/wwwauth/
http://www.emcb.co.uk  |  http://www.emcb.co.uk/webauth/
elfyn@emcb.co.uk       |  wwwauth-users AT nongnu DOT org

Re: Can't ssh into sources

[Elfyn McBratney]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Elfyn McBratney wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> > > Just wondering if there's something up with ssh on sources as I haven't
> > > been able to connect for a couple of hours (~12PM GMT), though everything
> > > else seems responsive.
> >
> > Works fine for me.  Yesterday the box was moved and the IP address
> > changed; the latter now needs to propagate through the Internet:
> >
> >   % host -t a gcc.gnu.org
> >   gcc.gnu.org             A       67.72.78.213
> >
> > (Your mail servers and possibly http-proxy might have the new address
> > already, why your workstation has cached the old one.)

It's OK now. Sorry to bother.

Elfyn

-- 
Elfyn McBratney, EMCB  |  http://www.nongnu.org/wwwauth/
http://www.emcb.co.uk  |  http://www.emcb.co.uk/webauth/
elfyn@emcb.co.uk       |  wwwauth-users AT nongnu DOT org

Re: Can't ssh into sources

[Jonathan Larmour]

Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> 
> Works fine for me.  Yesterday the box was moved and the IP address
> changed; the latter now needs to propagate through the Internet:
> 
>   % host -t a gcc.gnu.org
>   gcc.gnu.org             A       67.72.78.213
> 
> (Your mail servers and possibly http-proxy might have the new address
> already, why your workstation has cached the old one.)

I'm a bit bemused by what's been going on... firstly why isn't the above a 
CNAME? And secondly why weren't the TTLs reduced as is normal practice for 
IP address moves?

Seems like 5 minutes action by one person could have prevented hassles for 
many others. (Although I guess the problem is "just" that no-one thought 
to inform gnu.org in advance).

Jifl
-- 
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine

Re: Can't ssh into sources

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:29:21PM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>
>>Works fine for me.  Yesterday the box was moved and the IP address
>>changed; the latter now needs to propagate through the Internet:
>>
>>  % host -t a gcc.gnu.org
>>  gcc.gnu.org             A       67.72.78.213
>>
>>(Your mail servers and possibly http-proxy might have the new address
>>already, why your workstation has cached the old one.)
>
>I'm a bit bemused by what's been going on... firstly why isn't the above a 
>CNAME? And secondly why weren't the TTLs reduced as is normal practice for 
>IP address moves?
>
>Seems like 5 minutes action by one person could have prevented hassles for 
>many others. (Although I guess the problem is "just" that no-one thought 
>to inform gnu.org in advance).

AFAIK, gnu.org was notified in advance and it sure looks like their ttl
was set down.

Howeer, I'm sure they would be thrilled to discuss this matter with you
if you contacted them directly.  I doubt that any sysadmin from gnu.org
reads this mailing list.

Who knows?  They might even be willing to adjust your bill for the
inconvenience that you suffered.

cgf

Re: Can't ssh into sources

[Jonathan Larmour]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:29:21PM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>>
>>I'm a bit bemused by what's been going on... firstly why isn't the above a 
>>CNAME? And secondly why weren't the TTLs reduced as is normal practice for 
>>IP address moves?
>>
>>Seems like 5 minutes action by one person could have prevented hassles for 
>>many others. (Although I guess the problem is "just" that no-one thought 
>>to inform gnu.org in advance).
> 
> 
> AFAIK, gnu.org was notified in advance and it sure looks like their ttl
> was set down.

Unless it was already changed back earlier today (Sunday) when I looked, 
it didn't seem to be any different from e.g. www.gnu.org, namely 1 day.

> Howeer, I'm sure they would be thrilled to discuss this matter with you
> if you contacted them directly.  I doubt that any sysadmin from gnu.org
> reads this mailing list.

Indeed it may have been them who didn't do the sane thing. But since it 
isn't the first time things have changed without notice I thought I would 
froth at the mouth at the easy target for a bit because I'm in a bad mood ;-).

> Who knows?  They might even be willing to adjust your bill for the
> inconvenience that you suffered.

I hope so. I've got a £0.00 mobile phone bill this month, so I'll put the 
FSF's rebate towards that.

I'm just making an observation in the the hope that it stops something 
easily preventable from happening again... as s.r.c seems to get new IPs 
relatively frequently it seems!

Jifl
-- 
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine

Re: Can't ssh into sources

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 01:57:03AM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:29:21PM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>>>I'm a bit bemused by what's been going on...  firstly why isn't the
>>>above a CNAME?  And secondly why weren't the TTLs reduced as is normal
>>>practice for IP address moves?
>>>
>>>Seems like 5 minutes action by one person could have prevented hassles
>>>for many others.  (Although I guess the problem is "just" that no-one
>>>thought to inform gnu.org in advance).
>>
>>AFAIK, gnu.org was notified in advance and it sure looks like their ttl
>>was set down.
>
>Unless it was already changed back earlier today (Sunday) when I
>looked, it didn't seem to be any different from e.g.  www.gnu.org,
>namely 1 day.

Ok.  I see what you're saying now.  I was looking at the TTL in the SOA
which only applies to the checking that is handled by secondary DNS
servers.  The TTLs for cygwin.com and sources.redhat.com were set down
but gcc.gnu.org wasn't.

Re: Can't ssh into sources

[Jonathan Larmour]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> Ok.  I see what you're saying now.  I was looking at the TTL in the SOA
> which only applies to the checking that is handled by secondary DNS
> servers.  The TTLs for cygwin.com and sources.redhat.com were set down
> but gcc.gnu.org wasn't.

Now what about ecos.sourceware.org? I was expecting that to time out and 
update by now. It still hasn't which implies that Ian hasn't updated his 
DNS :-|.

Ian, if you're there, can you update ecos.sourceware.org please? There are 
quite a few broken URLs now as we've slowly been moving over :-(.

Jifl
-- 
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine

Re: Can't ssh into sources

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Jonathan Larmour <jifl@jifvik.org> writes:

> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > Ok.  I see what you're saying now.  I was looking at the TTL in the
> > SOA
> > which only applies to the checking that is handled by secondary DNS
> > servers.  The TTLs for cygwin.com and sources.redhat.com were set down
> > but gcc.gnu.org wasn't.
> 
> Now what about ecos.sourceware.org? I was expecting that to time out
> and update by now. It still hasn't which implies that Ian hasn't
> updated his DNS :-|.
> 
> Ian, if you're there, can you update ecos.sourceware.org please? There
> are quite a few broken URLs now as we've slowly been moving over :-(.

Whoops.  I updated sourceware.org but not ecos.sourceware.org.  Mea
culpa.  Updated now.  All secondaries updated.  All caches should
update within 24 hours.

Ian

Re: Can't ssh into sources

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Jonathan Larmour wrote:

> I'm a bit bemused by what's been going on... firstly why isn't the above a 
> CNAME? And secondly why weren't the TTLs reduced as is normal practice for 

A mail domain shouldn't be a CNAME.  See e.g.
<http://cr.yp.to/im/cname.html>.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm@polyomino.org.uk

Re: Can't ssh into sources

[Jonathan Larmour]

Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> 
> 
>>I'm a bit bemused by what's been going on... firstly why isn't the above a 
>>CNAME? And secondly why weren't the TTLs reduced as is normal practice for 
> 
> 
> A mail domain shouldn't be a CNAME.  See e.g.
> <http://cr.yp.to/im/cname.html>.

Oops, true. I was only thinking of the A record, but forget to recall that 
a CNAME prevents a separate MX record.

Jifl
-- 
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine