Project

General

Profile

Actions

Bug #4261

closed

Google Domains Dynamic DNS -- Works on 2.1.5 but not 2.2-RC

Added by Daniel Eckert almost 10 years ago. Updated almost 10 years ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
Dynamic DNS
Target version:
-
Start date:
01/21/2015
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Plus Target Version:
Release Notes:
Affected Version:
2.2
Affected Architecture:

Description

Hi team,

I'm using the new Google Domains Dynamic DNS functionality, and I am pleased that it works so well on 2.1.5! All I have to do is select Custom and enter the domain-specific username and password, along with the URL http://domains.google.com/nic/update?hostname=dc-srv-001.drakontasconsulting.net&myip=%IP% and pfSense takes care of it.

However, on 2.2-RC, following the same process is only partially successful. The Google Domains dashboard and DNS queries confirm that the update is successful. However, on the pfSense Dynamic DNS dashboard, the Cached IP column is not updated (stays 0.0.0.0) and is marked in red instead of green.

I've tried the following possibilities, to no avail:
  • setting the Result Match field to "good IP|nochg IP" (the two success responses given by Google Domains), "good|nochg", "%IP%"
  • manually running /etc/rc.dyndns.update per the suggestion at https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=58034.0
  • using the username/password form fields in the pfSense UI instead of the username:password notation in the URL

All of my testing is done using x64 versions; I am unsure whether success/failure affects 2.1.5 x86 or 2.2-RC x86.

I'm sorry I don't have any more ideas to try at the moment. Thanks for your help!

Actions #1

Updated by Chris Buechler almost 10 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Feedback
  • Target version deleted (2.2)

works fine here, we just did some testing with two diff hosts on Google Domains. Both update, both display the correct IP. Check the cache files in /cf/conf/ for that entry, see what they contain.

Actions #2

Updated by Chris Buechler almost 10 years ago

oh one difference between what you're doing and we're trying, we're using HTTPS rather than HTTP. Might want to try that.

Actions #3

Updated by Daniel Eckert almost 10 years ago

Sorry, typo in the report -- I am using HTTPS for all my attempts, not HTTP. I'll start fresh and see if I can figure out what the issue is on mine. Thanks for the update, though!

Actions #5

Updated by Chris Buechler almost 10 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Closed
Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF