|
@@ -81,11 +81,38 @@ this stage and should rather be considered an internal bug. This
|
|
|
event is therefore logged at the error level, and the request is
|
|
|
simply dropped. Additional information of the error is also logged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+% DDNS_REQUEST_TCP_QUOTA reject TCP update client %1 (%2 running)
|
|
|
+b10-ddns received a new update request from a client over TCP, but
|
|
|
+the number of TCP clients being handled by the server already reached
|
|
|
+the configured quota, so the latest client was rejected by closing
|
|
|
+the connection. The administrator may want to check the status of
|
|
|
+b10-ddns, and if this happens even if the server is not very busy,
|
|
|
+the quota may have to be increased. Or, if it's more likely to be
|
|
|
+malicious or simply bogus clients that somehow keep the TCP connection
|
|
|
+open for a long period, maybe they should be rejected with an
|
|
|
+appropriate ACL configuration or some lower layer filtering. The
|
|
|
+number of existing TCP clients are shown in the log, which should be
|
|
|
+identical to the current quota.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
% DDNS_RESPONSE_SOCKET_ERROR failed to send update response to %1: %2
|
|
|
Network I/O error happens in sending an update response. The
|
|
|
client's address that caused the error and error details are also
|
|
|
logged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+% DDNS_RESPONSE_TCP_SOCKET_ERROR failed to complete sending update response to %1 over TCP
|
|
|
+b10-ddns had tried to send an update response over TCP, and it hadn't
|
|
|
+been completed at that time, and a followup attempt to complete the
|
|
|
+send operation failed due to some network I/O error. While a network
|
|
|
+error can happen any time, this event is quite unexpected for two
|
|
|
+reasons. First, since the size of a response to an update request
|
|
|
+should be generally small, it's unlikely that the initial attempt
|
|
|
+didn't fail but wasn't completed. Second, since the first attempt
|
|
|
+succeeded and the TCP connection had been established in the first
|
|
|
+place, it's more likely for the subsequent attempt to succeed. In any
|
|
|
+case, there may not be able to do anything to fix it at the server
|
|
|
+side, but the administrator may want to check the general reachability
|
|
|
+with the client address.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
% DDNS_RUNNING ddns server is running and listening for updates
|
|
|
The ddns process has successfully started and is now ready to receive commands
|
|
|
and updates.
|
|
@@ -135,30 +162,3 @@ needs to examine this message and takes an appropriate action. In
|
|
|
either case, this notification is generally expected to succeed; so
|
|
|
the fact it fails itself means there's something wrong in the BIND 10
|
|
|
system, and it would be advisable to check other log messages.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-% DDNS_RESPONSE_TCP_SOCKET_ERROR failed to complete sending update response to %1 over TCP
|
|
|
-b10-ddns had tried to send an update response over TCP, and it hadn't
|
|
|
-been completed at that time, and a followup attempt to complete the
|
|
|
-send operation failed due to some network I/O error. While a network
|
|
|
-error can happen any time, this event is quite unexpected for two
|
|
|
-reasons. First, since the size of a response to an update request
|
|
|
-should be generally small, it's unlikely that the initial attempt
|
|
|
-didn't fail but wasn't completed. Second, since the first attempt
|
|
|
-succeeded and the TCP connection had been established in the first
|
|
|
-place, it's more likely for the subsequent attempt to succeed. In any
|
|
|
-case, there may not be able to do anything to fix it at the server
|
|
|
-side, but the administrator may want to check the general reachability
|
|
|
-with the client address.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-% DDNS_REQUEST_TCP_QUOTA reject TCP update client %1 (%2 running)
|
|
|
-b10-ddns received a new update request from a client over TCP, but
|
|
|
-the number of TCP clients being handled by the server already reached
|
|
|
-the configured quota, so the latest client was rejected by closing
|
|
|
-the connection. The administrator may want to check the status of
|
|
|
-b10-ddns, and if this happens even if the server is not very busy,
|
|
|
-the quota may have to be increased. Or, if it's more likely to be
|
|
|
-malicious or simply bogus clients that somehow keep the TCP connection
|
|
|
-open for a long period, maybe they should be rejected with an
|
|
|
-appropriate ACL configuration or some lower layer filtering. The
|
|
|
-number of existing TCP clients are shown in the log, which should be
|
|
|
-identical to the current quota.
|