[bug#63403] [PATCH 1/1] services: wireguard: Implement a dynamic IP monitoring feature.

["Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>]

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:

> Yeah, upstream offers a contrib shell script called reresolve-dns.sh
> [0], that works a bit differently (it's doesn't actually monitor IPs but
> just keep a watch on when was the last successful handshake made).
>
> [0]  https://github.com/WireGuard/wireguard-tools/blob/master/contrib/reresolve-dns/reresolve-dns.
>
>> Would that be a viable option?  WDYT?
>
> I think my Guile script is more precise in terms of what it does and
> also produces useful output.  If I knew of the shell script existence
> when I started I probably wouldn't have bothered re-implementing it in
> Scheme, but since it's here, and better, I see no reason to not use it
> :-).  I don't foresee high maintenance for the stable APIs involved
> (resolving host names and setting an endpoint with 'wg set').

I don’t doubt your script is better (first because it’s in Guile ;-)).
I’m concerned about adding non-trivial “peripheral” code that we’ll all
be responsible for going forward (the Jami services pose a similar
challenge IMO: I experienced first-hand the maintenance burden recently
when investigating system test failures.)

So I’m a bit torn.  I sympathize with the need to improve those
services, but I’m also concerned what will happen if we don’t have clear
criteria to decide what to take and what to reject.

WDYT?

Ludo’.