Re: cfrun: question about the output for unreachable hosts

[Mark Burgess]

No route to host = firewall?

M

On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 10:59 +0100, Moritz Bunkus wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> I've got cfengine 2.1.10 running on a couple of Debian machines
> here. Not all are running 24/7 (the workstations). The usual thing.
> 
> Everything is fine. I'm just a bit confused about cfrun's output if a
> host is unrechable. Example:
> 
> 0 root@ls-bs-si2:/home/mbunkus$ cfrun ls-bs-ws3
> cfrun(0):         .......... [ Hailing 
> ls-bs-ws3.bs.linet-services.de ] ..........
> cfrun:ls-bs-si2.bs.linet-services.de: Couldn't open a socket
> cfrun:ls-bs-si2.bs.linet-services.de: socket: No route to host
> 
> ls-bs-ws3 is indeed down, but why does cfrun use ls-bs-si2... as the
> host name in this case? This gets even more confusing when I run cfrun
> without any argument and it iterates through all hosts in
> cfrun.hosts. For each unreachable host it just prints the two lines
> shown above, and I have no clue whatsoever which hosts are actually
> down.
> 
> So. Is this the intended behaviour? If yes, then why (probably because I
> don't fully understand how cfengine works; but that information above is
> useless and misleading)? If not, has this bug been fixed already? The
> ChangeLog for 2.1.13 does not mention anything in that direction, and I
> don't really want to install from source only for trying, and the
> packages in Debian/testing are at 2.1.10.
> 
> Thanks for your help.
> 
> Moritz
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Help-cfengine mailing list
> Help-cfengine@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine