XMPP Service Operators - 2021-12-29


  1. mjk

    Java is cornucopious!

  2. Martin

    Has anyone seen Ralphm? > ik.nu: Server-to-server connection failed: No route to host

  3. JRHaigh

    Martin, please can you check conference.Jabber.Vikings.net for correctness?

  4. JRHaigh

    He apparently fixed it but that it may take some hours for the DNS changes to propagate.

  5. JRHaigh

    I don't mind waiting but it'll be annoying to wait indefinitely and eventually find that it's still not quite right, and then have to wait some more hours for a second DNS propagation.

  6. Sam

    Whenever I make DNS changes I initially set a very low TTL for this reason. That way if I'm wrong I can change it again and it doesn't take long; after I verify that it works I bump the TTL back up to a day or whatever longer one I was using.

  7. Sam

    (the first change still takes a while, of course, but if I need subsequent ones it's not as frustrating)

  8. moparisthebest

    That's always my plan but then I never go back and bump them up :)

  9. moparisthebest

    So all my TTLs are forever 5 minutes

  10. JRHaigh

    Sam: Thanks. I've done that myself for nonXMPP stuff before, and I've passed on the suggestion just now to my friend running the XMPP server. :-)

  11. JRHaigh

    moparisthebest: Lol!

  12. Martin

    JRHaigh: > Martin, please can you check conference.Jabber.Vikings.net for correctness? Sorry, I'm AFK, but I guess others can also check.

  13. ernst.on.tour

    JRHaigh: How will somebody check a non completly propagated DNS-change ? Martin is not the wizzard of Oz, he had just to wait like you 😉

  14. rozzin

    ernst.on.tour: one of us who knows what it should look like could dig the records out of the master NS directly and tell him if he made any obvious mistakes? 😜

  15. JRHaigh

    rozzin: I've used dig before on my own stuff, but anyway, he sent me them. Problem is, I don't know what the XMPP records are meant to be to make it work.

  16. JRHaigh

    I don't think there's anything sensitive in sharing these records he sent me, which should be on their way to public servers anyway... > _xmpp-server._tcp.conference.jabber.vikings.net. 86400 IN SRV 0 1 5269 jabber.vikings.net > _xmpp-client._tcp.jabber.vikings.net. 86311 IN SRV 0 0 5222 jabber.vikings.net > is what I currently have If he gets that wrong, though, it'll take another day to propagate the fix. :-/

  17. JRHaigh

    Aside from that, all I know is that it still doesn't work.

  18. mjk

    > $ telnet jabber.vikings.net 5269 > Trying 185.199.141.40... > Connected to 185.199.141.40. Worksforme

  19. mjk

    So, either it's not propagated to you yet, or there are other things wrong

  20. ernst.on.tour

    Should be: ``` dig @ns1.foo.bar SRV _xmpp-server._tcp.conference.foo.bar +short 10 0 5269 conference.foo.bar ``` Is: ``` dig @ns1.vikings.net SRV _xmpp-server._tcp.conference.jabber.vikings.net +short 0 1 5269 jabber.vikings.net ``` ``` dig @ns1.vikings.net jabber.vikings.net +short 185.199.141.40 dig @ns1.vikings.net conference.jabber.vikings.net +short jabber.vikings.net 185.199.141.40 ``` Seems to be allright....

  21. moparisthebest

    you can't assume the name server for foo.bar is ns1.foo.bar though, you need to `dig ns foo.bar` to find out it's name servers

  22. ernst.on.tour

    Yeah, but *my* foo.bar told me authorative ns is name1 for foo.bar Vikings.net told me ns1.vikings.net dns-admin.vikings.net 😉

  23. Menel

    JRHaigh: works now for me, didnt test before, but xmpp connected there

  24. JRHaigh

    Hmm, but I still get "delivery failed". :-/

  25. Menel

    For conference.Jabber.Vikings.net srv: xmpp-server jabber.vikings.net. 5269 Priority: 0 Weight: 1 IP: 185.199.141.40 Connection: [OK] StartTLS: [OK] Certificate: [OK] And xmpp ping works too..

  26. JRHaigh

    Btw., he did drop the TTL. Just been told he set it to 3600.

  27. JRHaigh

    I'll try a different WAN...

  28. jonas’

    that's good for the *next* time

  29. JRHaigh

    Yep. :-)

  30. jonas’

    though 3600 is still quite a lot

  31. JRHaigh

    DNS is a pain. :-/

  32. jonas’

    all a matter of training

  33. JRHaigh

    3hrs.

  34. JRHaigh

    1 hour.

  35. JRHaigh

    Hooray!!! :-D It's working!!! Thank you very much! :-D

  36. JRHaigh

    > I'll try a different WAN... Changing WAN, rebooting, etc. didn't fix it, though; I had to completely close the room and open it again from bookmarks.

  37. JRHaigh

    I don't know what the close + reopen had to do with DNS, or why a reboot didn't fix that instead, but there we go, that's what it was stuck on, it seemed.

  38. JRHaigh

    That was for my spare account that I was using to test. For the other affected contact (the one that originally ran into this interservice problem), I just tried resending the invite and instantly he appeared as "(Online)"! :-D

  39. JRHaigh

    So rather than retrying sending to the private MUC with my Disroot.org account (which continued to fail even after the problem was fixed), I should have instead kept resending invite from my Vikings.net account to my Disroot.org account until the latter had a notification or appeared online in the private group chat. It would have probably indicated success a few hours sooner, I realise in hindsight. :-)

  40. JRHaigh

    So rather than retrying sending to the private MUC on conference.Jabber.Vikings.net with my Disroot.org account (which continued to fail even after the problem was fixed), I should have instead kept resending invite from my Vikings.net account to my Disroot.org account until the latter had a notification or appeared online in the private group chat. It would have probably indicated success a few hours sooner, I realise in hindsight. :-)

  41. JRHaigh

    So rather than retrying sending from my Disroot.org account to the private MUC on conference.Jabber.Vikings.net (which continued to fail even after the problem was fixed), I should have instead kept resending invite from my Vikings.net account to my Disroot.org account until the latter had a notification or appeared online in the private group chat. It would have probably indicated success a few hours sooner, I realise in hindsight. :-)

  42. JRHaigh

    > all a matter of training Yep, I've definitely learnt quite a bit about MUCs in the past couple of days! :-)

  43. JRHaigh

    Thank you all very much for your help. :-)