On 29.6.2015 14:07, Matt . wrote:
> Hi Petr,
> Bot servers have zone:
> Server1 (192.168.1.1) has:
> foo A 192.168.1.10
> bar A 192.168.1.20
> Server2 (192.168.2.1) has:
> candy A 192.168.2.100
> I have a forward first on Server1 to the IP of Server2
> So when my DNS server on my client is 192.168.1.1 and I do a nslookup
> candy.domain.tld it should not lookup locally but on the forward
> (Server2). But when I lookup foo.domain.tld it should get a reply of
Okay, now I understand it. It is not possible now and it will likely never be
possible because it breaks the basic principles of DNS.
You are expected to have one set of servers which are authoritative for a
given zone and this set of servers should synchronized databases among each
If you really want to split responsibility for different records to multiple
servers then you should create sub-domains and do proper delegation for
For example, server 1 might be authoritative for zone domain.tld. This domain
can contain delegation to server2 for names candy.domain.tld and so on.
I hope this helps.
> rpm -q bind-dyndb-ldap bind ipa-server
> It would also be great if this is possible between IPA 3 and 4.
> Thanks for your help so far!
> 2015-06-29 13:44 GMT+02:00 Petr Spacek <pspa...@redhat.com>:
>> On 29.6.2015 13:16, Matt . wrote:
>>> The zones are on both servers, just not all records are, this has a
>>> reason. One server is maintained by a script, the other one only
>>> forwards to it if needed.
>>> The idea is that it does a local lookup, when it doesn't find the
>>> record locally, it forwards to it's forwarder to see if it has an
>>> I thought this was working but isn't and following your table it should.
>> I'm sorry but I do not understand.
>> Could you please give us specific examples?
>> - what data you have in what zones and on what server
>> - what is your forwarding configuration
>> - what is the result you get
>> - what is the expected result
>> Also, please add output from command:
>> $ rpm -q bind-dyndb-ldap bind ipa-server
>>> What are my options ?
>> We will see once I understand your requirement :-)
>> Petr^2 Spacek
>>> 2015-06-29 11:20 GMT+02:00 Petr Spacek <pspa...@redhat.com>:
>>>> On 27.6.2015 19:06, Matt . wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> When I add a forwarder with policy to forward first, there is only
>>>>> forwarder and not a fallback to local when the record doesn't exist on
>>>>> the forward server.
>>>>> When I remove the forwardserver, the local lookup works great again.
>>>>> Is this known to 3.0 servers or has it been a bug or am I doing somethin
>>>>> wrong ?
>>>> Forwarders in FreeIPA behave in the same way as in BIND 9.9 and the
>>>> you describe seems to be okay.
>>>> The behavior is summarized in a nice table here:
>>>> In other words, there is no thing like 'look into this zone and look into
>>>> zone if the first zone does not contain an answer'. Such behavior would
>>>> the very basic principle of DNS - division to independent, self-contained
>>>> zones. What are you trying to achieve? What is the use-case?
>>>> Please note that in FreeIPA < 4.1 zones with non-empty 'forwarders'
>>>> were automatically configured as forward zones. The split to pure forward
>>>> master zones happened in FreeIPA 4.1.
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-users mailing list:
Go to http://freeipa.org for more info on the project