On Jul 25, 2008, at 4:05 PM, David Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Matthew Seaman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Pratt wrote:
I'm now setting up a bind server in which the third alias
is the address for incoming DNS queries. It appears
it's responding but even though the queries come in
on the third alias, they "go out" through the "primary"
address or more specifically, the packet count is
incremented in the Opkts total for the IP address first
attached to the interface via ifconfig (without an alias).
My problem appears to be that the packets really are
coming from the first IP as the source and are getting
blocked by my firewall as they should (the first address
is not supposed to be answering DNS queries).
Carefully not answering the 'why do these packets come from the
wrong address' question, but just pointing out that BIND is
actually rather more configurable in this respect than most
Deliberately addressing the question of 'why do these packets come
from the wrong address' question which Mr. Seaman avoided (hello
again, Mathew!), I'll add my two cents.
Run netstat -rnfinet and examine what's in the 'Netif' column. If
there was some inter-host traffic, you'll see a host entry for each of
your aliases with a value of 'lo0'. Correlate all the entries in the
routing table and you'll be able to determine what exits where.
I'm not sure why this question doesn't come up more frequently as it
can be problematic, especially in regards to jails (which are
implemented using IP aliasing). I started a discussion some weeks ago
on the subject that you may find interesting. To recap briefly, if a
jail host sends traffic to a jail, the traffic will transit the lo0
interface, exit the jail's interface using the jail's IP address, and
connect to the jail on its IP address. The end result? Traffic with
identical source and destination IP addresses!
Using your numbers, if named was running in a jail (192.168.0.18) and
a query was made on the host (192.168.0.12), instead of seeing
192.168.0.12.3450 -> 192.168.0.18.53
192.168.0.18.53 -> 192.168.0.12.3450
you'd see the following on lo0:
192.168.0.18.3450 -> 192.168.0.18.53
192.168.0.18.53 -> 192.168.0.18.3450
You're not using jails, but what I'm describing isn't a jail issue, or
a general IP aliasing issue, but a routing issue. Modifying the
routing table is, of course, possible. But the results, I've found,
are less than satisfactory. If you force traffic out an actual
interface, the return traffic will probably still have to occur over
loopback and you're back to where you started, but with some new
problems. Note also that the above seems to apply irrespective of
the number of network cards or networks.
Tthe moral of the story? Configure named appropriately, and don't ask
any more questions. ;-) On the other hand, if you insist on thinking
immoral thoughts as I do, and find a more thorough explanation of any
of the above, please do let me know.
Thanks for the very detailed explanation. I'm hot on the named
configuration so that should quiet the questions. But ;-), how about the
multiple route table implementation recently introduced in HEAD.
Perhaps there is a solution there in the future! I stay with the current
RELEASE so I haven't even researched, just watched the talk.
Thanks again to both you and Matthew,
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"