On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Ingo Schwarze <schwa...@usta.de> wrote: > Hi, > > Johan Beisser wrote on Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 09:18:22AM -0700: >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Laurence Rochfort >> <laurence.rochf...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Is there a DynDNS client for OpenBSD? > >> Rolled my own in Python a while back. There are a few that're utter >> overkill for "simple updater." > > If IP changes are rare for you and just want to update your IP manually > now and then, using the web interface most providers offer is probably > sufficient, and you don't even need your own script.
Mine are rare, but referencing the developer site ( http://dyn.com/support/developers/api/ ) does give you enough information to avoid having your client blocked, and how to make it comply with their TOS. > If you want to run the client as a daemon, i'd advise against > rolling your own. Most providers block accounts that update too > frequently, and getting the logic right to prevent excessive > updates is tricky. Not really. It's dead simple: check against a state file that has the last known IP, compare to the interface or a web site that returns the external IP address, and update if that changes. If there's a change, update dyn.com, update your state file, and exit. I run mine every 5 minutes or so from cron. If nothing else, it's a good scripting exercise and a very basic one as well. Dyn.com offers up testing DNS entries for developers to test their code against. > My experience is mostly with ddclient; i have contributed a few > patches that were accepted upstream. The maintainer is a nice > guy, not very actively supporting ddclient, but not letting it > rot completely either. For home use, it is clearly good enough. > For enterprise use, it is usable (if you are willing to help > and fix the occasional bug), but certainly not great. > > However, the code quality is positively revolting. I have rarely > seen Perl code looking that ugly. Still, as it is a small code base, > you can find your way around it. But hacking into it is not fun, > and if you value reliability a lot, you should probably look into > other options, too, and compare. All the more reason to write your own updater. You get to know what features you really need, vs the ugly crap that people include in their scripts.
