Hi Libor,
hi Daniel,

today we were finally able to isolate and to reproduce the problem.
We made an issue in gitlab because it's much easier to read when
everything is formatted.

https://gitlab.nic.cz/knot/knot-dns/-/issues/721


BR,

Thomas

On 18.03.21 10:32, libor.peltan wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> do you please have any updates to your issue?
> 
> Could you perhaps try to somehow clone your environment so that you had
> the issue reproduced in a non-production setup ready for some more
> experiments?
> 
> First of all, I wonder if after you add a new zone to your configuration
> and instead of re-configuring the server, sign the zone first with
> `kzonesign -r`, the same behavior would be observed...
> 
> Sorry for not helping you yet, but we are struggling understanding
> what's going on at your setup :(
> 
> BR,
> 
> Libor
> 
> Dne 14. 03. 21 v 8:53 Daniel Salzman napsal(a):
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> You could try purging possibly orphaned data:
>> # knotc -f zone-purge -- +orphan
>>
>> Please make a backup of the defective situation first!
>>
>> Do you think that you could prepare and share (just with us) a minimal
>> reproducer of the issue?
>> It would help a lot with the debugging.
>>
>> Best,
>> Daniel
>>
>> On 3/14/21 12:14 AM, Thomas wrote:
>>> Hi Libor,
>>>
>>> we experience the same behavior after changing the config. Still 2 KSK
>>> (and 2 ZSK) are being created after signing a zone. One with Alg 8 and
>>> one with Alg 10. The one with Alg 8 is being used for signing and a
>>> rollover is started immediately after signing.
>>>
>>> Don't now how to get out of the situation. Somehow there must be a
>>> reference to the old Alg 8 somewhere. No idea why a new zone is singed
>>> with Alg 8.
>>>
>>> Is there a way to clean up all the DNSSEC related data somehow? Actually
>>> I would be able to un-sign and purge all zones, we are only signing a
>>> few until now. But I don't know if this will solve the issue.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09.03.21 13:40, libor.peltan wrote:
>>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>>
>>>> yes, it shall be very smooth to simply remove the 'share' option from
>>>> configuration and continue as before.
>>>>
>>>> The idea of shared KSK was generally good and a surprising enhancement,
>>>> but you might have fallen to a random bug in rarely deployed
>>>> configuration combo.
>>>>
>>>> I'm curious to hear if your issue disappears once you change the
>>>> config.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know,
>>>>
>>>> Libor
>>>>
>>>> Dne 09. 03. 21 v 13:15 Thomas E. napsal(a):
>>>>> Thanks for the hint with the "cds-cdnskey-publish: always" issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are using shared ksk policy beause we thought it might be a good
>>>>> idea
>>>>> to reduce the amount of keys in the database. We are going to sing
>>>>> more
>>>>> than 10K zones and thought it might be a good thing to use shared keys
>>>>> to speed up backups and restores.
>>>>> But if this causes the actual problem I will change it of course.
>>>>> Do you
>>>>> know if it's safe to remove the shared policy attribute from the
>>>>> config?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08.03.21 17:55, Tuomo Soini wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 17:09:54 +0100
>>>>>> "Thomas E." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A KSK and ZSK with Alg RSASHA256 have been created and the zone was
>>>>>>> signed. An  algorithm rollover is triggered right after signing. I
>>>>>>> don't understand why RSASHA256 is still being used.
>>>>>> This is a very wild guess but I'd suspect this has something to do
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> ksk-shared: true, note the config below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> policy:
>>>>>>>>>>      - id: shared
>>>>>>>>>>        algorithm: RSASHA512
>>>>>>>>>>        ksk-size: 2048
>>>>>>>>>>        zsk-size: 1024
>>>>>>>>>>        zsk-lifetime: 30d
>>>>>>>>>>        ksk-lifetime: 365d
>>>>>>>>>>        ksk-shared: true
>>>>>>>>>>        ksk-submission: resolver
>>>>>>>>>>        nsec3: true
>>>>>>>>>>        cds-cdnskey-publish: always
>>>>>> Btw. cds-cdnskey-publish: always is against instructions in rfc.
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> should only be published for rollover only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there some reason for using shared ksk?
>>>>>>

-- 
https://lists.nic.cz/mailman/listinfo/knot-dns-users

Reply via email to