Home > Failed To > Failed To Get Agent Interface

Failed To Get Agent Interface

If the registering failed or didn't help for your issue, you could try this: Download and install Microsoft XML Parser (MSXML) 3.0 Service Pack 7 (SP7) and see if it helps. it would be a lot simpler if it could grab any assigned IP and use that by default. (The Consul-client should resolve localhost and use the resolved value to connect to, I expect consul to only bind to localhost and RFC1918 IP's with the current policy if -bind isn't specified. Sign up now! Check This Out

[email protected]:~# consul agent -server -data-dir /tmp/consul ==> WARNING: It is highly recommended to set GOMAXPROCS higher than 1 ==> Starting Consul agent... ==> Error starting agent: Failed to get advertise address: Make your public-IP attitude your only attitude. What actual problem is this filter solving in datacenters besides being annoying? Quote2006-08-11 12:18:59 796 178 AU AU found 1 sessions to launch client into 2006-08-11 12:18:59 796 178 AU Launched new AU client for directive 'Install Approval', session id = 0x0 2006-08-11 directory

Failed to open the registry Key (SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\LMS). It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). I think this is a sane tradeoff.

that would be a very sane design since it removes any possibility that consul may select the wrong address to announce "automagically" I'm also a bit torn between keeping the ip getting an interface pointer for a downstream filter from an upstream filter 3 post • Page:1 of 1 All times are UTC Board index Spam Report Skip to content Ignore Resolution These errors can be safely ignored. Please ignore this thread Top 1.

It can't create entirely new interfaces for you. [email protected]:# consul agent -server -data-dir /tmp/consul -bind=xx.xx.45.83 ==> WARNING: It is highly recommended to set GOMAXPROCS higher than 1 ==> Starting Consul agent... ==> Starting Consul agent RPC... ==> Consul agent I testing in Windows. Through rules in iptables on each host we configure the communication that we allow and drop the rest.

I was thinking maybe I'd have to create a VPN of all my VPSes. Continue Search Sign In Sign In Create Support Account Products ActiveRoles Boomi Change Auditor Foglight Identity Manager KACE Migration Manager Rapid Recovery Recovery Manager SharePlex SonicWALL Spotlight Statistica Toad View all Marc Speed Guest One of my clients is not installing updates. I'm curious why your ephemeral instances need public IPs.

Saying "we won't bind to a non-rfc1918 address even if there are none found is telling the user you're smarter than they are. There are two major problems with your approach: Your software behaves differently out of the box on systems with and without an RFC1918 address, but your documentation doesn't call that out. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #725 (comment) johnjelinek commented May 14, 2015 I also learned that the order of the flags matter: -bind public_ip -join cluster_IP As to multiple -client and -bind addresses, this is complicated significantly by the design of the gossip system, as it does not easily allow us to broadcast our availability on multiple

Client end points are the only devices behind a NAT (and even then, we only NAT IPv4. his comment is here About Us Windows Vista advice forums, providing free technical support for the operating system to all. Contributor highlyunavailable commented Jun 25, 2015 @johnjelinek Have you tried clearing out your data-dir before running consul agent -data-dir .\consul -bind Windows Vista Tips Forums > Newsgroups > Windows Update > Forums Forums Quick Links Search Forums Recent Posts Articles Members Members Quick Links Notable Members Current Visitors Recent Activity New Profile

What release of Consul are you using? Terms Privacy Security Status Help You can't perform that action at this time. Almost all of our machines are running on opennebula and thus the interface is eth0 in most cases, so being able to use -bind-interface eth0 would at least make the situation this contact form staticglobal commented Aug 7, 2015 Publicly /routable/ and publicly /connectable/ seems to be the difference you are missing.

I think the RFC1918 restriction is a bit unexpected. I'm curious why your ephemeral instances need public IPs. I'd auto-bind to the non-localhost (eth0) interface IP address if only one is available and force the user to set an address in cases where more than one is available.

I'll let you know the results.

Private IP's may be seen as more secure since they aren't routeable on the internet, but in reality they aren't. The private ip space restriction does not hold within the IPv6 world, so why is it present within the IPv4 space? 👎 1 Member armon commented Jun 17, 2015 @duritong In the Run box, type (or copy/paste from this post) %windir%\system32\regsvr32.exe %windir%\system32\MSXML3.dll (note the space there in the middle) 4. Some thoughts i have about service design: A service shouldn't treat ip addresses differently if they are from one range or another as that's up to network design and network security.

What person needs consul for their datacenter and this "protection"? You'll be able to ask questions about Vista or chat with the community and help others. Backup retention issue Multiple tape drives question... navigate here I'll try to add a virtual interface for windows to see if that helps.

All IPv6 addrs are global). All my servers are in DMZ networks with routable IPs. It will still bind to any address, even if it's public. The only way to prevent them on an Intel-based system is to enable and properly configure Intel vPro in your environment.

Already have an account? ole exception 80004002 randomly 13. Ability to drill down in reports... If there are multiple IPs, it cannot know what to advertise and should fail with "Multiple IPs detected - please specify the IP to announce".