default-gateway | Get the default network gateway , cross-platform | Networking library

The fundamental problem here is that your grammar requires two tokens of lookahead, which puts it out of scope for an LALR(1) parser. (The "1" indicates that lookahead is limited to one token.)

That doesn't make the language LALR(2). There is no such thing as an LALR(2) language because every language with an LALR(2) grammar also has an LALR(1) grammar. Moreover, there is an algorithm which can transform an LALR(2) grammar into an LALR(1) grammar, and even make it possible to recover the parse tree which would have been generated by the LALR(2) grammar if you had an implementation.

Unfortunately, the grammars generated by this transformation are very bulky and hard to read, and have a lot of productions with the same semantic actions. Also, there are few implementations of the transformation, because a more effective strategy is to use a more general parsing algorithm. Bison itself can be asked to generate a GLR parser, and in Perl there is Jeffrey Kegler's Marpa parser, among others. But I'm going to assume that you don't want to change parser generator.

The basic nature of the LALR(2)⇒LALR(1) transformation is to store the first lookahead token as part of the semantic value. This effectively shifts the parser one token into the future. If you're doing this by hand, that transformation is only needed for the non-terminals which actually need two tokens of lookahead, which in your case is basically the top-level non-terminal which represents a list of commands.

For now, I'm not going to write that out, either. Instead, I'm going to provide two simpler and possibly more maintainable hacks.

This is the way that most yacc-like processors handle the optional ; in grammar descriptions. (I don't know if the semicolon is optional in yapp, but it certainly is in yacc and bison.) In the BNF syntax, an identifier token is unambiguously a left-hand side if it is followed by a :, but a naive implementation is LR(2), as with your grammar; the previous definition can't be closed until the : is seen. To get around this problem, the lexer recognises an identifier followed by a : as a different token type. Similarly, your lexer could recognise the two token sequence ip default-gateway as a single token. That assumes that there is nowhere else in the grammar where ip could be immediately followed by default-gateway, or that if it is, it can be parsed as though it were a single world.

That complicates the lexer a bit (particularly if you allow comments between the two keywords) but if you only have a few phrases which have to be recognised that way it is probably not too bad.

Here, the top-level non-terminal is split into two possibilities:

• closed, meaning that the last command cannot be extended,
• open, meaning that the last command is an interface command and a following if_attr clause should be appended. The open non-terminal's semantic value includes the possibly-incomplete interface command as part of its semantic value.

This is also based on a strategy for parsing BNF, in which a single identifier is just retained in the semantic value for the list of productions until it becomes clear whether it is to be added to the right-hand side of the last production or it is the left-hand side of a new production.

I haven't programmed in Perl for many years, so I wrote the semantic actions as pseudo-code. Sorry.

Pass in only required values instead of entire data. Try the code below replacing your while loop.

if you can access to the cluster using any dns, or cluster/load balancer IP, you can change the example.com DNS to *. or other method is put all DNSs like a list in the hosts block.

Looking into the documentation:

• The HTTP-01 challenge can only be done on port 80. Allowing clients to specify arbitrary ports would make the challenge less secure, and so it is not allowed by the ACME standard.

As a workaround:

1. Please consider using DNS-01 challenge:

a) it only makes sense to use DNS-01 challenges if your DNS provider has an API you can use to automate updates.

b) using this approach you should consider additional security risk as stated in the docs:

Pros: You can use this challenge to issue certificates containing wildcard domain names. It works well even if you have multiple web servers.

Cons: *Keeping API credentials on your web server is risky. Your DNS provider might not offer an API. Your DNS API may not provide information on propagation times.

As mentioned here:

In order to be automatic, though, the software that requests the certificate will also need to be able to modify the DNS records for that domain. In order to modify the DNS records, that software will also need to have access to the credentials for the DNS service (e.g. the login and password, or a cryptographic token), and those credentials will have to be stored wherever the automation takes place. In many cases, this means that if the machine handling the process gets compromised, so will the DNS credentials, and this is where the real danger lies.

1. I would suggest also another approach to use some simple nginx pod which would redirect all http traffic to https.

There is a tutorial on medium with nginx configuration you might try to use.