Re: tcp versus udp

2009-05-06 Thread Mark Andrews

In message , Barry Margolin
 writes:
> In article ,
>  Sam Wilson  wrote:
> 
> > In article , Mark Elkins  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > One place that TCP may make sense - if you are involved in a registry
> > > system and the process involves actually checking the information that
> > > you are given, including nameservers (do they exist, do they serve that
> > > zone - correctly?) - it may make a lot of sense to do TCP Digs for the
> > > information (though that should probably be after a failed UDP dig - as
> > > a number of people do insist on disallowing Port 53 TCP).
> > 
> > If the registry is testing for compliant servers then a failed TCP query 
> > should flag the server as non-working, as would a failed UDP query.
> 
> DNS servers MUST support UDP, and only SHOULD support TCP.  So a failed 
> TCP query should not flag the server as non-working.

I would expect TLD's to not accept DNSSEC material without
a working TCP/DNS service.  There are too many cases where
resolvers are forced back to TCP with DNSSEC to allow it
to happen.

I also suspect that 99.9% of people that block DNS/TCP do
so without the necessary considerations required to override
the SHOULD of RFC 1123, Section 6.1.5.  Anyone that thinks
TCP is only used for AXFR and can therefore be blocked
clearly has not done the relevent study.

Mark

RFC 1123.

 *"SHOULD"
 
  This word or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" means that there
  may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
  ignore this item, but the full implications should be
  understood and the case carefully weighed before choosing
  a different course.

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: mark_andr...@isc.org
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: tcp versus udp

2009-05-06 Thread Barry Margolin
In article ,
 Sam Wilson  wrote:

> In article , Mark Elkins  
> wrote:
> 
> > One place that TCP may make sense - if you are involved in a registry
> > system and the process involves actually checking the information that
> > you are given, including nameservers (do they exist, do they serve that
> > zone - correctly?) - it may make a lot of sense to do TCP Digs for the
> > information (though that should probably be after a failed UDP dig - as
> > a number of people do insist on disallowing Port 53 TCP).
> 
> If the registry is testing for compliant servers then a failed TCP query 
> should flag the server as non-working, as would a failed UDP query.

DNS servers MUST support UDP, and only SHOULD support TCP.  So a failed 
TCP query should not flag the server as non-working.

-- 
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: NXRRSET

2009-05-06 Thread Chris Buxton

On May 6, 2009, at 7:49 AM, Thilanka Samarasekera wrote:

Hello,

I am running BIND version 9.2.3 on a Solaris 9 box. Every now and  
then I will see the following in my DNS cache:


domain.com.   458 \-  ;-$NXRRSET

If I force a MX record lookup it does get the correct MX records for  
"domain.com". The explanation I have for "NXRRSET" is "Its the  
number od queries the name server handled that resulted in responses  
saying that the type of record the querier requested didn't exist  
for the domain name it specified". If do a MX record look for  
"domain.com" it does get the correct entries and caches it for the  
specified TTL. My question is how do I go about identifying what's  
causing my BIND server to cache a query with the flag "NXRRSET" ?



The query getting the negative response here is for an  record  
named domain.com. For example, there might be:


example.com.  MX  10  mx.example.com.
mx.example.com.  A  192.0.2.1

Your cache might then end up with an NXRRSET (no such resource record  
set) for mx.example.com/IN/, because the mail server is looking  
for IPv6 addresses for the mail server.


Chris Buxton
Professional Services
Men & Mice

___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


NXRRSET

2009-05-06 Thread Thilanka Samarasekera
Hello,

I am running BIND version 9.2.3 on a Solaris 9 box. Every now and then I
will see the following in my DNS cache:

domain.com.   458 \-  ;-$NXRRSET

If I force a MX record lookup it does get the correct MX records for "
domain.com". The explanation I have for "NXRRSET" is "Its the number od
queries the name server handled that resulted in responses saying that the
type of record the querier requested didn't exist for the domain name it
specified". If do a MX record look for "domain.com" it does get the correct
entries and caches it for the specified TTL. My question is how do I go
about identifying what's causing my BIND server to cache a query with the
flag "NXRRSET" ?

Thank you in advance
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: child zone not forwarded

2009-05-06 Thread Ben Croswell
You have to make sure that you actually have NS delegations in xxx.com for
child.xxx.com.  That has bitten me on occasion.
If you load the parent and the parent has no NS delegation for a child, it
assumes the child doesn't really exist and ignores the zone forward.

-- 
-Ben Croswell


2009/5/6 Cihan Subasi (Garanti Teknoloji) 

>  Hi,
>
> I have a authorative zone xxx.com and its child as a FORWARD zone to a
> local dns...But child is not working, seems like the requests are not
> forwarded at all and locally ansvered...Why?
>
> thank you
>
> zone "child.xxx.com" {
> type forward;
> forward only;
> forwarders { 10.129.3.34;};
> };
> zone "xxx.com" {
> type master;
> file "dmz.dom";
> allow-update { none; };
> allow-query { localhost;
>   can_query; }
> };
>
> This message and attachments are confidential and intended solely for the
> individual(s) stated in this
> message. If you received this message although you are not the addressee,
> you are responsible to keep the
> message confidential. The sender has no responsibility for the accuracy or
> correctness of the
> information in the message and its attachments. Our company shall have no
> liability for any changes
> or late receiving, loss of integrity and confidentiality, viruses and any
> damages caused in
> anyway to your computer system.
>
> Bu mesaj ve ekleri, mesajda gonderildigi belirtilen kisi/kisilere ozeldir
> ve gizlidir. Bu mesajin muhatabi
> olmamaniza ragmen tarafiniza ulasmis olmasi halinde mesaj iceriginin
> gizliligi ve bu gizlilik yukumlulugune
> uyulmasi zorunlulugu tarafiniz icin de soz konusudur. Mesaj ve eklerinde
> yer alan bilgilerin dogrulugu ve
> guncelligi konusunda gonderenin ya da sirketimizin herhangi bir sorumlulugu
> bulunmamaktadir. Sirketimiz
> mesajin ve bilgilerinin size degisiklige ugrayarak veya gec ulasmasindan,
> butunlugunun ve gizliliginin
> korunamamasindan, virus icermesinden ve bilgisayar sisteminize verebilecegi
> herhangi bir zarardan
> sorumlu tutulamaz.
>
> ___
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
>
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

child zone not forwarded

2009-05-06 Thread Cihan Subasi (Garanti Teknoloji)
Hi,

I have a authorative zone xxx.com and its child as a FORWARD zone to a local 
dns...But child is not working, seems like the requests are not forwarded at 
all and locally ansvered...Why?

thank you

zone "child.xxx.com" {
type forward;
forward only;
forwarders { 10.129.3.34;};
};
zone "xxx.com" {
type master;
file "dmz.dom";
allow-update { none; };
allow-query { localhost;
  can_query; }
};


This message and attachments are confidential and intended solely for the 
individual(s) stated in this message. If you received this message although you 
are not the addressee, you are responsible to keep the message confidential. 
The sender has no responsibility for the accuracy or correctness of the 
information in the message and its attachments. Our company shall have no 
liability for any changes or late receiving, loss of integrity and 
confidentiality, viruses and any damages caused in anyway to your computer 
system.  

Bu mesaj ve ekleri, mesajda gonderildigi belirtilen kisi/kisilere ozeldir ve 
gizlidir. Bu mesajin muhatabi olmamaniza ragmen tarafiniza ulasmis olmasi 
halinde mesaj iceriginin gizliligi ve bu gizlilik yukumlulugune uyulmasi 
zorunlulugu tarafiniz icin de soz konusudur. Mesaj ve eklerinde yer alan 
bilgilerin dogrulugu ve guncelligi konusunda gonderenin ya da sirketimizin 
herhangi bir sorumlulugu bulunmamaktadir. Sirketimiz mesajin ve bilgilerinin 
size degisiklige ugrayarak veya gec ulasmasindan, butunlugunun ve gizliliginin 
korunamamasindan, virus icermesinden ve bilgisayar sisteminize verebilecegi 
herhangi bir zarardan sorumlu tutulamaz.   ___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: Bind Statistics questions

2009-05-06 Thread Nuno Ribeiro
Hi,

Comments inline.

Thanks in any advance.

Best Regards,
NR


2009/5/5 JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 

> At Tue, 5 May 2009 11:11:13 +0100,
> Nuno Ribeiro  wrote:
>
> > I have some doubts and I would like clarify them:
> > - Bind ( version 9.5) provides lots of statistics information and
> provides
> > two interfaces for users to get access to it (file dump and HTTP access).
> > For what I see and read the counters are cumulative during the time the
> > service is running. My question is if it possible to reset the counter
> > statistics in real time in order to have statistic details in a time
> > interval?
>
> It's currently not possible.  We've actually discussed before, so you
> might want to search the mail archive.  It would not be difficult to
> implement it, but I've personally not yet seen a strong argument for
> it.  Most if not all of the things that the reset feature could
> provide can be achieved by post-processing cumulative data, so, for
> now I'd rather keep the server side simple.
>
> > Other question is if there is any statistic detail provide us information
> > such this "average time answering to queries of type A"
>
> The answer would be no anyway, but I'm afraid the question is also not
> very clear.  Can you define "average time answering to queries of type
> A" more precisely? (e.g. it's not even clear about an authoritative
> server or a recursive server)


[NR] I didn't saw yet any option (logging or statistics) that allows an
administrator to know which time Bind is taking to process a query (by type
of query) and answer to it . This could be saved as general indicators
associated to the number of incoming queries  (divided by type of query).
If this is not possible yet, is there any log that can be activated that
allows me to know the time that Bind is is taking to process a query in
order to build some post-processing logic that could give me these
indicators.

Note: I'm considering questions to an authoritative server

>
>
> ---
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
>



-- 
Nuno Ribeiro
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: tcp versus udp

2009-05-06 Thread Sam Wilson
In article , Mark Elkins  
wrote:

> One place that TCP may make sense - if you are involved in a registry
> system and the process involves actually checking the information that
> you are given, including nameservers (do they exist, do they serve that
> zone - correctly?) - it may make a lot of sense to do TCP Digs for the
> information (though that should probably be after a failed UDP dig - as
> a number of people do insist on disallowing Port 53 TCP).

If the registry is testing for compliant servers then a failed TCP query 
should flag the server as non-working, as would a failed UDP query.

Sam
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: tcp versus udp

2009-05-06 Thread Sam Wilson
In article , Danny Mayer  
wrote:

> Peter Dambier wrote:
> > Hello Martin,
> > 
> > since a major outage at my provider, dtag.de or Deutsche Telecom AG, I have 
> > trouble
> > with f.root-servers.net. Sometimes "dig ... +vc" does help me to see 
> > f.root-servers.net.
> > 
> > The real problem is anycast. With udp it behaves different than with tcp.
> 
> That's nonsense. anycast is invisible to this. anycast doesn't care if
> it's udp or tcp, it only deals with the routing tables to determine
> where to send the request packet.

It's not quite nonsense, only very nearly.  One can imagine a corner 
case where a router has equal cost paths to more than one anycast 
instance and that same router is set up to do per-packet load balancing, 
then it might not be possible to set up a TCP connection to that anycast 
address through that router.  This is likely to be a rare occurrence.

Sam
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: [DNSSEC] SERVFAIL when resolving ".gov" through DLV

2009-05-06 Thread Mark Andrews

In message <1241593258.1629.60.ca...@ilinux>, Mark Elkins writes:
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 13:45 -0500, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 May 2009, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > 
> > > This is a BIND 9.5.1-P1, Debian package. It is configured to use ISC's
> > > DLV:
> > 
> > https://www.isc.org/node/437
> 
> Question on using "trusted-keys":
> 
> There are two public sources of "trusted-keys" - ISC's DLV via 
> http://ftp.isc.org/www/dlv/dlv.isc.org.named.conf and Iana's ITAR via
> https://itar.iana.org/anchors/anchors.xml (though this needs to be
> 'expanded').
> One might also have one's own personal list for local use?
> 
> 
> Some sections in "named.conf" should logically only be there once (eg,
> options and logging), some should be there multiple times (zone
> definitions).
> 
> Can "trusted-keys" be defined multiple times?

Yes.

> - or should there only be
> one trusted-keys section? I know multiple keys in one trusted-keys
> section works just fine - which might imply one can only have one
> trusted-key definition?
> 
> A 'man named.conf' is not immediately obvious about this.
> 
> -- 
>   .  . ___. .__  Posix Systems - Sth Africa.  e.164 VOIP ready
>  /| /|   / /__   m...@posix.co.za  -  Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
> / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496
> 
> ___
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: mark_andr...@isc.org
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: [DNSSEC] SERVFAIL when resolving ".gov" through DLV

2009-05-06 Thread Mark Elkins
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 13:45 -0500, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> 
> > This is a BIND 9.5.1-P1, Debian package. It is configured to use ISC's
> > DLV:
> 
> https://www.isc.org/node/437

Question on using "trusted-keys":

There are two public sources of "trusted-keys" - ISC's DLV via 
http://ftp.isc.org/www/dlv/dlv.isc.org.named.conf and Iana's ITAR via
https://itar.iana.org/anchors/anchors.xml (though this needs to be
'expanded').
One might also have one's own personal list for local use?


Some sections in "named.conf" should logically only be there once (eg,
options and logging), some should be there multiple times (zone
definitions).

Can "trusted-keys" be defined multiple times? - or should there only be
one trusted-keys section? I know multiple keys in one trusted-keys
section works just fine - which might imply one can only have one
trusted-key definition?

A 'man named.conf' is not immediately obvious about this.

-- 
  .  . ___. .__  Posix Systems - Sth Africa.  e.164 VOIP ready
 /| /|   / /__   m...@posix.co.za  -  Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496

___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users