Re: Spotty Lookups on One of Our Networks
I described a case where one of our remote campuses can't resolve a number of remote domains. One example is noaa.gov. It also successfully resolves random remote domains without seemingly any rime or reason. Here is a bad dig trace for noaa.gov ; DiG 9.7.7 @localhost +trace noaa.gov ; (2 servers found) ;; global options: +cmd . 453464 IN NS b.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS l.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS a.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS i.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS j.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS f.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS g.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS e.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS h.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS d.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS c.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS k.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS m.root-servers.net. ;; Received 512 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) in 320 ms gov.172800 IN NS b.gov-servers.net. gov.172800 IN NS a.gov-servers.net. ;; Received 133 bytes from 192.58.128.30#53(192.58.128.30) in 210 ms noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-e.noaa.gov. noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-mw.noaa.gov. noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-nw.noaa.gov. This trace took several minutes since no successful resolution was made. Here is a good trace using our DNS. ; DiG 9.8.1-P1 +trace @localhost noaa.gov ; (2 servers found) ;; global options: +cmd . 369104 IN NS d.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS j.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS b.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS g.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS i.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS e.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS l.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS m.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS h.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS f.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS c.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS a.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS k.root-servers.net. ;; Received 512 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) in 497 ms gov.172800 IN NS a.gov-servers.net. gov.172800 IN NS b.gov-servers.net. ;; Received 133 bytes from 192.112.36.4#53(192.112.36.4) in 439 ms noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-e.noaa.gov. noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-mw.noaa.gov. noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-nw.noaa.gov. ;; Received 133 bytes from 69.36.157.30#53(69.36.157.30) in 224 ms noaa.gov. 86400 IN A 140.90.200.21 noaa.gov. 86400 IN A 140.172.17.21 noaa.gov. 86400 IN A 129.15.96.21 noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-e.noaa.gov. noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-mw.noaa.gov. noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-nw.noaa.gov. ;; Received 181 bytes from 140.90.33.237#53(140.90.33.237) in 37 ms Barry Margolin writes: I'm not sure what you mean by that sentence about getting authoritative DNSs from X when it sbould be from Y. Can you post the actual dig? BTW, @servername doesn't mean much when using +trace, since +trace queries the servers listed in NS records, not a resolver. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Spotty Lookups on One of Our Networks
Hello Martin, Martin McCormick mar...@dc.cis.okstate.edu writes: I described a case where one of our remote campuses can't resolve a number of remote domains. One example is noaa.gov. It also successfully resolves random remote domains without seemingly any rime or reason. Here is a bad dig trace for noaa.gov [...] http://www.zonecut.net/dns shows that nameserver ns-e.noaa.gov is not responding The dig +trace might hang if that authoritative DNS server is selected for the query. ns-mw.noaa.gov and ns-nw.noaa.gov operate fine. ns-e could mean east coast. -- Carsten ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
limitations of dig +nssearch
Does anyone know why dig brownmackie.com +nssearch only returns 5 auth nameserver soa records? A check of whois shows they have 7 auth nameservers. A dig -t NS brownmackie.com @one of their auth nameservers shows 7 nameservers are delegated authority for the domain. Is this a limitation of +nssearch? Can +nssearch only return up to 5 soa records? Thanks! Marty in Indianapolis ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
BIND and DNSSEC
Hi Can anybody point me in the direction of a good guide on setting up BIND split horizon DNS and DNSSEC? Thanks in advance Kobus -- ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Delegations
I have a zone file for example.org that has entries for a subdomain l2.example.org like this: vpn.l2 IN A10.1.2.3 Now they want to add a subdomain below l2, ie. ad.l2.eboces.org with hosts such as dc.ad.l2.eboces.org In the zone file for example.org, I can add NS and glue records for ad.l2.example.org as this: dc.ad.l2 IN A 10.2.3.4 dr.ad.l2 IN A 10.4.5.6 ad.l2 IN NS dc.ad.l2.example.org. ad.l2 IN NS dr.ad.l2.eboces.org. Will this work, or do I need to delegate l2.example.org before I can delegate ad.l2.example.org? -- William Brown Core Hosted Application Technical Team and Messaging Team Technology Services, WNYRIC, Erie 1 BOCES Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information, and is intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee (or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the addressee), or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are hereby notified that you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of this message or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete this message from your system. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: limitations of dig +nssearch
M. Meadows sun-g...@live.com wrote: Does anyone know why dig brownmackie.com +nssearch only returns 5 auth nameserver soa records? A check of whois shows they have 7 auth nameservers. Two of them do not respond to queries for brownmackie.com. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first. Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good, occasionally poor at first. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Spotty Lookups on One of Our Networks
In article mailman.544.1351690146.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org, Carsten Strotmann c...@strotmann.de wrote: Hello Martin, Martin McCormick mar...@dc.cis.okstate.edu writes: I described a case where one of our remote campuses can't resolve a number of remote domains. One example is noaa.gov. It also successfully resolves random remote domains without seemingly any rime or reason. Here is a bad dig trace for noaa.gov [...] http://www.zonecut.net/dns shows that nameserver ns-e.noaa.gov is not responding The dig +trace might hang if that authoritative DNS server is selected for the query. ns-mw.noaa.gov and ns-nw.noaa.gov operate fine. ns-e could mean east coast. Did the problem coincide with Hurricane Sandy? That would explain inability to reach many east coast servers. Resolvers should work around this by failing over to other servers (assuming the organization has them geographically distributed, as NOAA.GOV does), but dig +trace doesn't. -- Barry Margolin Arlington, MA ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Delegations
On 31/10/12 17:12, wbr...@e1b.org wrote: I have a zone file for example.org that has entries for a subdomain l2.example.org like this: vpn.l2 IN A10.1.2.3 Now they want to add a subdomain below l2, ie. ad.l2.eboces.org with hosts such as dc.ad.l2.eboces.org You terminology is a bit confusing here. subdomain is imprecise. Specify what *zones* you want, and where you want the delegations, and it should be easy to see what will work and not. example.org SOA www.example.org A - hostname, in example.org zone vpn.l2.example.org A - hostname, still in example.org zone ad.l2.example.org NS - delegation point in example.org zone xx.ad.l2example.org A - glue, *still* in example.org zone ...and of course then the SOA zone contents for ad.l2.example.org In the zone file for example.org, I can add NS and glue records for ad.l2.example.org as this: dc.ad.l2 IN A 10.2.3.4 dr.ad.l2 IN A 10.4.5.6 ad.l2 IN NS dc.ad.l2.example.org. ad.l2 IN NS dr.ad.l2.eboces.org. Will this work, Yes, if I've understood what you want. or do I need to delegate l2.example.org before I can delegate ad.l2.example.org? No. Zone cuts can be at any label inside a zone. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Spotty Lookups on One of Our Networks
Martin, what do you see if you do a packet capture on the host where you're running dig? How 'bout at the border of your network? Obviously traffic's not making it through, but where? Any sort of split routing paths that might be involved? John On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Martin McCormick mar...@dc.cis.okstate.edu wrote: I described a case where one of our remote campuses can't resolve a number of remote domains. One example is noaa.gov. It also successfully resolves random remote domains without seemingly any rime or reason. Here is a bad dig trace for noaa.gov ; DiG 9.7.7 @localhost +trace noaa.gov ; (2 servers found) ;; global options: +cmd . 453464 IN NS b.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS l.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS a.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS i.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS j.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS f.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS g.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS e.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS h.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS d.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS c.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS k.root-servers.net. . 453464 IN NS m.root-servers.net. ;; Received 512 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) in 320 ms gov.172800 IN NS b.gov-servers.net. gov.172800 IN NS a.gov-servers.net. ;; Received 133 bytes from 192.58.128.30#53(192.58.128.30) in 210 ms noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-e.noaa.gov. noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-mw.noaa.gov. noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-nw.noaa.gov. This trace took several minutes since no successful resolution was made. Here is a good trace using our DNS. ; DiG 9.8.1-P1 +trace @localhost noaa.gov ; (2 servers found) ;; global options: +cmd . 369104 IN NS d.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS j.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS b.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS g.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS i.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS e.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS l.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS m.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS h.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS f.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS c.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS a.root-servers.net. . 369104 IN NS k.root-servers.net. ;; Received 512 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) in 497 ms gov.172800 IN NS a.gov-servers.net. gov.172800 IN NS b.gov-servers.net. ;; Received 133 bytes from 192.112.36.4#53(192.112.36.4) in 439 ms noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-e.noaa.gov. noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-mw.noaa.gov. noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-nw.noaa.gov. ;; Received 133 bytes from 69.36.157.30#53(69.36.157.30) in 224 ms noaa.gov. 86400 IN A 140.90.200.21 noaa.gov. 86400 IN A 140.172.17.21 noaa.gov. 86400 IN A 129.15.96.21 noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-e.noaa.gov. noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-mw.noaa.gov. noaa.gov. 86400 IN NS ns-nw.noaa.gov. ;; Received 181 bytes from 140.90.33.237#53(140.90.33.237) in 37 ms Barry Margolin writes: I'm not sure what you mean by that sentence about getting authoritative DNSs from X when it sbould be from Y. Can you post the actual dig? BTW, @servername doesn't mean much when using +trace, since +trace queries the servers listed in NS records, not a resolver. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users -- John Miller Systems Engineer Brandeis University johnm...@brandeis.edu (781) 736-4619 ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org
Re: Delegations
Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: No. Zone cuts can be at any label inside a zone. Provided inside does not include the zone apex :-) Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first. Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good, occasionally poor at first. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Delegations
Phil wrote on 10/31/2012 02:15:16 PM: You terminology is a bit confusing here. subdomain is imprecise. Sorry, I meant it as a piece of the FQDN. Specify what *zones* you want, and where you want the delegations, and it should be easy to see what will work and not. Yes, if I've understood what you want. I think you got it. or do I need to delegate l2.example.org before I can delegate ad.l2.example.org? No. Zone cuts can be at any label inside a zone. Thanks. Waiting for firewall changes tonight to test. Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information, and is intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee (or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the addressee), or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are hereby notified that you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of this message or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete this message from your system. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Delegations
On 10/31/2012 10:12 AM, wbr...@e1b.org wrote: I have a zone file for example.org that has entries for a subdomain l2.example.org like this: vpn.l2 IN A10.1.2.3 Now they want to add a subdomain below l2, ie. ad.l2.eboces.org with hosts such as dc.ad.l2.eboces.org As someone else pointed out, you're confusing different terms here. If all you want is to add new host names that have l2.eboces.org in them, you can do that without creating a zone cut. OTOH, if what you want to do is create a new zone at ad.l2.eboces.org because you want to delegate it to _different_ name servers than those authoritative for eboces.org, then yes; your safest bet is to do proper zone cuts at each level. It's perfectly Ok to have the name servers for l2.eboces.org be the same as those for eboces.org, just make sure you move any related records (such as your vpn.l2 above) into the new zone file. It may or may not be strictly necessary to do this depending on everything else you have in the zone, but it's safer in the long term to do it this way. hope this helps, Doug In the zone file for example.org, I can add NS and glue records for ad.l2.example.org as this: dc.ad.l2 IN A 10.2.3.4 dr.ad.l2 IN A 10.4.5.6 ad.l2 IN NS dc.ad.l2.example.org. ad.l2 IN NS dr.ad.l2.eboces.org. Will this work, or do I need to delegate l2.example.org before I can delegate ad.l2.example.org? ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Spotty Lookups on One of Our Networks
The system hung long enough to have timed out on every possible DNS that it could have tried so it should have gotten to one. Barry Margolin writes: Did the problem coincide with Hurricane Sandy? That would explain inability to reach many east coast servers. Resolvers should work around this by failing over to other servers (assuming the organization has them geographically distributed, as NOAA.GOV does), but dig +trace doesn't. Thank you very much for your suggestions. We are more or less in a waiting mode right now as the network staff on our remote campus check some settings on their firewall. We know now this is almost certainly not a bind issue as we have discovered many remote networks that seem to have no TCP/IP connectivity from the remote campus but are perfectly reachable from here. We started receiving complaints about a week ago so the hurricane is not to blame. I will let the group know what happened as soon as we find out, ourselves. Martin McCormick ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Delegations
On 10/31/2012 06:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote: It may or may not be strictly necessary to do this depending on everything else you have in the zone, but it's safer in the long term to do it this way. Are you suggesting it's best of the OP creates l2.example.com as a sub-zone? Why it this necessary / safer? ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Delegations
On 10/31/2012 5:15 PM, Phil Mayers wrote: On 10/31/2012 06:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote: It may or may not be strictly necessary to do this depending on everything else you have in the zone, but it's safer in the long term to do it this way. Are you suggesting it's best of the OP creates l2.example.com as a sub-zone? Why it this necessary / safer? I know of at least 2 commerically-available DNS maintenance systems that, by default, do not allow what they call dotted hostnames, by which they mean a name which is at least 2 labels below a zone cut, e.g. foo.bar in the example.com zone. Their underlying assumption seems to be that *every* level of the hierarchy will, in the usual/typical/default case, be delegated. I don't agree with this assumption in the slightest, but some people are afraid of changing default behaviors... - Kevin ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Delegations
On Oct 31 2012, Phil Mayers wrote: On 10/31/2012 06:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote: It may or may not be strictly necessary to do this depending on everything else you have in the zone, but it's safer in the long term to do it this way. Are you suggesting it's best of the OP creates l2.example.com as a sub-zone? Why it this necessary / safer? It certainly isn't necessary. We have plenty of zone cuts more than one label deep into the parent zone. And of course such delegations are *extremely* common in the reverse lookup trees, with the IPv6 one probably providing records for the number of labels between cuts. I don't see how safer would apply, either. -- Chris Thompson Email: c...@cam.ac.uk ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Delegations
On Oct 31 2012, Kevin Darcy wrote:
[...snip...]
I know of at least 2 commerically-available DNS maintenance systems
that, by default, do not allow what they call dotted hostnames, by
which they mean a name which is at least 2 labels below a zone cut, e.g.
foo.bar in the example.com zone. Their underlying assumption seems
to be that *every* level of the hierarchy will, in the
usual/typical/default case, be delegated.
I don't agree with this assumption in the slightest, but some people are
afraid of changing default behaviors...
What default behavior? The default behavior of (seriously) defective
DNS maintenance systems? (You wouldn't like to name-and-shame, I suppose?)
The end-point of that sort of logic is that, for example, the SRV record
for _someservice._tcp.somename.example.com has to have separate zones
for somename.example.com and _tcp.somename.example.com, probably
containing nothing but the names mentioned. I've seen people actually
do this, and it's painful to watch.
We were never in that mess as regards the DNS itself, but we did have
an IP registration database that delegated control over names on the basis
of a domain part taken to be all but the first label. It was hard work
to change it to allow the domain part for authorisation purposes to be
any trailing set of labels, but by ${DEITY?} it was necessary!
--
Chris Thompson
Email: c...@cam.ac.uk
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Delegations
On 10/31/2012 03:22 PM, Chris Thompson wrote: On Oct 31 2012, Kevin Darcy wrote: [...snip...] I know of at least 2 commerically-available DNS maintenance systems that, by default, do not allow what they call dotted hostnames, by which they mean a name which is at least 2 labels below a zone cut, e.g. foo.bar in the example.com zone. Their underlying assumption seems to be that *every* level of the hierarchy will, in the usual/typical/default case, be delegated. I don't agree with this assumption in the slightest, but some people are afraid of changing default behaviors... What default behavior? The default behavior of (seriously) defective DNS maintenance systems? (You wouldn't like to name-and-shame, I suppose?) The end-point of that sort of logic is that, for example, the SRV record for _someservice._tcp.somename.example.com has to have separate zones for somename.example.com and _tcp.somename.example.com, probably containing nothing but the names mentioned. I've seen people actually do this, and it's painful to watch. Chris, I specifically asked the OP if they wanted a zone cut at the higher level, or if they were just looking for multi-dot names. So this particular argumentum ad absurdum is particularly inappropriate. We used to say that you didn't need to do a delegation if the subzone was going to be hosted on the same auth. name server either, and then along came DNSSEC and lots of people with systems that weren't breaking any rules are suddenly dealing with strange error messages. So sure, the OP could probably get away with it even without doing a zone cut at the middle level. But I stand by my assertion that for maximum future-proofing they're safer with it than without. Doing the zone cut costs them almost nothing now, and may save time/effort/energy down the road. Doug ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Delegations
In message 5091a8bc.70...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes: On 10/31/2012 03:22 PM, Chris Thompson wrote: On Oct 31 2012, Kevin Darcy wrote: [...snip...] I know of at least 2 commerically-available DNS maintenance systems that, by default, do not allow what they call dotted hostnames, by which they mean a name which is at least 2 labels below a zone cut, e.g. foo.bar in the example.com zone. Their underlying assumption seems to be that *every* level of the hierarchy will, in the usual/typical/default case, be delegated. I don't agree with this assumption in the slightest, but some people are afraid of changing default behaviors... What default behavior? The default behavior of (seriously) defective DNS maintenance systems? (You wouldn't like to name-and-shame, I suppose?) The end-point of that sort of logic is that, for example, the SRV record for _someservice._tcp.somename.example.com has to have separate zones for somename.example.com and _tcp.somename.example.com, probably containing nothing but the names mentioned. I've seen people actually do this, and it's painful to watch. Chris, I specifically asked the OP if they wanted a zone cut at the higher level, or if they were just looking for multi-dot names. So this particular argumentum ad absurdum is particularly inappropriate. We used to say that you didn't need to do a delegation if the subzone was going to be hosted on the same auth. name server either, and then along came DNSSEC and lots of people with systems that weren't breaking any rules are suddenly dealing with strange error messages. Adding a child zone without adding the delegating NS records was always a bad idea. Such instruction also usually contained the caveat this is technically wrong and will cause issues if you ever have machines that do not host both zones but you can get away with it. Nameserver also used to merge zone contents so that AXFR included the NS records from the child zone. So sure, the OP could probably get away with it even without doing a zone cut at the middle level. But I stand by my assertion that for maximum future-proofing they're safer with it than without. Doing the zone cut costs them almost nothing now, and may save time/effort/energy down the road. You are equating a practice that was techically wrong, and known to be wrong from the get go, with one that has never been techically wrong. Doug ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list 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: ma...@isc.org ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Using BIND-DLZ for a hidden master [was: Re: dns master-slave transfer]
On Oct 29 2012, Feng He wrote: 于 2012-10-29 9:58, kavin 写道: Now，I want transfer the zone data from the master dns serverto slave dns server ,the master dns use bind-dlz+mysql and the slave dns server use bind+file. AFAIK, BIND DLZ doesn't send a notify message to slave, so both your master and slave should be able to use the DLZ backend and run a mysql replication for data sync. That exchange prompts me to ask whether anyone has managed to use BIND-DLZ in something like the following scenario. We have a hidden master for vanity zones (we call them something else for the punters) that runs in a small footprint virtual machine together with the web server providing the updating interface. The latter stores the data in a MySQL database. At the moment there is a crontab that extracts data from that database and updates zone files (if they need changing - there are some neat-o optimisations) and does an rndc reload on the hidden master daemon. That NOTIFYs the public nameservers for the zones, which are are in fact our regular authoritative-only ones. It seems that one ought to be able to use BIND-DLZ to cut out a step there, but none of the how-to's for it seem to address this sort of scenario, and the NOTIFY issue is particularly relevant. Fast responses from the hidden master to queries are certainly *not* a requirement here, and indeed we expect to be able to operate with it (and its MySQL database) down for significant periods. On the other hand, there is also a possibility that we might want to sign the vanity zones (we use JANET, Nominet and Gandi for their registrations, who all support signed delegations now), and how that would interact with BIND-DLZ might also be an issue. Can one use BIND 9.9 inline signing with the unsigned version provided by a DLZ interface? -- Chris Thompson Email: c...@cam.ac.uk ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Delegations
In message 5091adef.1040...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes: On 10/31/2012 03:56 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: You are equating a practice that was techically wrong, and known to be wrong from the get go, with one that has never been techically wrong. Yes, I'm making exactly the same judgment that typical users make. It works, so it must be Ok. The fact that we (experts) can get away with something, whether it's technically right/wrong/indifferent not withstanding, doesn't mean that it's good advice for the average user. Doug Putting in delegations where they are not needed introduces additional work and more places that can go wrong. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
