On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Bostjan Skufca <bostjan@xxxxxx> wrote: > Nico, > > those were my thoughts, exacly, except that I was thinking about using "dig > +short HOST | ..." which has the cleanest output of all. Excellent point. I like it! It can get a bit confusing with round-robin DNS, which can give multiple responses. > But there is that initial "if" in your email, which prevented me from > sending email in the first place. Using ping seems the most portable way, > albeit not very elegant. And it does help deal with the round-robin, or /etc/hosts published hostnames in a way that "dig" does not. > On 29 August 2015 at 12:25, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Walter Carlson <wlcrls47@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Walter Carlson <wlcrls47@xxxxxxxxx> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Perfect, thanks. This winds up working for me (as far as I've tested >> >> so >> >> far.) >> >> >> >> Match exec "ping -q -c 1 -t 1 %n | grep '192\.168\.'" >> >> StrictHostKeyChecking no >> >> UserKnownHostsFile none >> >> >> > >> > For the record, the last line has to be "UserKnownHostsFile /dev/null". >> > I >> > saw "none" being used in others' openssh examples, but for me, that's >> > using >> > the file ~/none rather than being interpreted as "don't use one". >> >> If you've installed the relevant "bind-utils" or similar DNS package, >> can't you ust use "host %n | grep ' 192\.168\\." ? It's faster than >> running ping, especially for non-responsive hosts. > > _______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
