socket.c:2135: unexpected error:

Hi, After upgrading BIND from 9.9.9-P5 to 9.11.3., the following messages have been displayed continuously in the file /var/log/messages as below. - May 29 02:36:50 dns01 nanny[5609]: debug start 1 May 29 02:37:08 dns01 named[1679]: socket.c:2135: unexpected error: May 29 02:37:08

Re: [bind-users] Slow reply under heavy load (on a specific NIC ip)

Dear guys, thank you for answering. We are using a CentOS 7.2 distribution, x64 architecture. We use generic e1000 network driver, the Virtual machine runs under VMware 5.5. We use netfilter on the Firewall machine, another machine, we raised up the "somaxconn" parameter. We do not see, right

Re: [bind-users] Slow reply under heavy load (on a specific NIC ip)

Can you please provide some specifics about your setup that is experiencing the problem? HW - Sparc, PPC, Intel x86/x64, ARM ? OS - what OS is the problem occurring on? specific BIND version? anything about the NIC in question, possibly to include mfg && model number, if relevant? Thanks

Re: Slow reply under heavy load (on a specific NIC ip)

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 8:20 AM Ict Security wrote: > Hi guys, > > we are running a Bind 9.x Server, everything is going fine. > Under particular heavy load mometns, with some hundreds of concurrent > queries coming in, sometime Bing stops answering for some seconds or > answer with important

Fwd: Slow reply under heavy load (on a specific NIC ip)

Hi guys, we are running a Bind 9.x Server, everything is going fine. Under particular heavy load mometns, with some hundreds of concurrent queries coming in, sometime Bing stops answering for some seconds or answer with important delays. But, when i try to query the same server/same Bind on a

Slow reply under heavy load (on a specific NIC ip)

Hi guys, we are running a Bind 9.x Server, everything is going fine. Under particular heavy load mometns, with some hundreds of concurrent queries coming in, sometime Bing stops answering for some seconds or answer with important delays. But, when i try to query the same server/same Bind on a

Re: Saurabh: Not getting the answer with AAAA record. Error FORMERR resolving 'gim8.pl/AAAA/IN comes.

Cathy Almond wrote: > > My understanding of why RPZ by default queries for names that it's going > to rewrite anyway, is that the lack of regular queries to the > authoritative servers alerts the zone owners (who we assume are > malicious or similar) to the fact that their zone is being blocked

Re: BIND rejecting key to update a zone

Hi Mark, > Jun  1 20:19:34 rpz0 named[30999]: client 127.0.0.1#64585/key > dns-update: signer "dns-update" denied > Jun  1 20:19:34 rpz0 named[30999]: client 127.0.0.1#64585/key > dns-update: update 'test.rpz/IN' denied > > What am I missing here?   Interesting, you do not seem to be missing

Re: PKCS#11 vs OpenSSL (BIND Future Development Question)

> On 4 Jun 2018, at 10:21, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 06:00:08AM +, Ondřej Surý wrote: >> The PKCS#11 interface is very fragile, as the different vendors implement >> different parts of the >> standard, and BIND needs to be compiled with a specific PKCS#11 provider

Re: PKCS#11 vs OpenSSL (BIND Future Development Question)

On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 06:00:08AM +, Ondřej Surý wrote: > The PKCS#11 interface is very fragile, as the different vendors implement > different parts of the > standard, and BIND needs to be compiled with a specific PKCS#11 provider > defined at the > compile time. This is certainly

Re: Saurabh: Not getting the answer with AAAA record. Error FORMERR resolving 'gim8.pl/AAAA/IN comes.

On 22/05/2018 15:58, Tony Finch wrote: > Saurabh Srivastava wrote: > >> I have faced an issue on my RPZ Server. >> I have added the A record Entry & record entry for some domains. >> The RPZ Policy is running fine. >> But the werired response that i am getting with few domains are that when