About query response on a view

2015-12-09 Thread Okan Bostan 
Hello List,

We are planning to migrate to Bind dns, I'm a bit newbie.

In our design we have two views; int and ext.
As internal view, recursion is on and we have our internal zones & forwarders. 
I have no problem with internal view.

In external view, recursion in no. Also have some zones. In testing external 
view, I can query the records in zones, thats not a problem also.

But when I try to query, for example www.google.com it 
returns the root servers records by dig.

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;ww.IN  A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
.   518400  IN  NS  D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.

And status: NOERROR

also in nslookup:

Name:www.google.com
Served by:
- E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET


But in our existing DNS enviroment, I get  status: SERVFAIL to same query.

Is this a normal behaviour ? How can I disable this Authority section with root 
server NS records?

My external view:

view "EXTERNAL" {

match-clients {"any";};
allow-query-on {ext_ip; };

recursion  no;
allow-recursion { none;};


#Include SLAVE zones
include "slave.zones";

#Include REVERSE zones
include "reverse.zones";



};// view EXTERNAL

Regards,

Okan.
___
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: About query response on a view

2015-12-09 Thread Eray Aslan 
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 09:11:28AM +, Okan Bostan wrote:
> As internal view, recursion is on and we have our internal zones &
> forwarders. I have no problem with internal view.

Do try and separate authoritative and recursive servers in your
environment.

> But in our existing DNS enviroment, I get  status: SERVFAIL to same
> query.

I am assuming status: REFUSED is the desired output.

> Is this a normal behaviour ? How can I disable this Authority section
> with root server NS records?

Check additional-from-cache and additional-from-auth settings and
consider upgrading if you are using an old version.

-- 
Eray Aslan 
___
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: About query response on a view

2015-12-09 Thread Barry S. Finkel 

 Okan Bostan  wrote:

Hello List,

We are planning to migrate to Bind dns, I'm a bit newbie.

In our design we have two views; int and ext.
As internal view, recursion is on and we have our internal zones & forwarders. 
I have no problem with internal view.

In external view, recursion in no. Also have some zones. In testing external 
view, I can query the records in zones, thats not a problem also.

But when I try to query, for examplewww.google.com  it 
returns the root servers records by dig.

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;ww.IN  A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
.   518400  IN  NS  D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.

And status: NOERROR

also in nslookup:

Name:www.google.com
Served by:
- E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET


But in our existing DNS enviroment, I get  status: SERVFAIL to same query.

Is this a normal behaviour ? How can I disable this Authority section with root 
server NS records?

My external view:

view "EXTERNAL" {

 match-clients {"any";};
 allow-query-on {ext_ip; };

 recursion  no;
 allow-recursion { none;};


 #Include SLAVE zones
 include "slave.zones";

 #Include REVERSE zones
 include "reverse.zones";



};// view EXTERNAL

Regards,

Okan.


Something got lost in "translation".

> But when I try to query, for example
> www.google.com

Did you really type "dig www.google.com"?

> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;ww.IN  A

According to dig, you queried "ww.".
And the output of dig is correct - there is no DNS entry
with that name, and the authority section contains the
root servers, as it is those servers which would have
contained the zone, had it existed.

You did not give us the unedited output of "dig".

--Barry Finkel
___
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

putting several master DNS hosts behind a vip

2015-12-09 Thread blrmaani 
Hi,
  I would like to put 4 DNS masters behind a vip and have several slaves doing 
the zone transfer from the VIP-IP. Is this normal?

The usual approach is to have slaves getting zone transfers from multiple 
masters. What is the disadvantage of having slaves using just the vip and have 
all masters behind the vip? 

thanks
Blr
___
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: About query response on a view

2015-12-09 Thread Darcy Kevin (FCA) 
Well, there some things that are not clear from your message:

A) when you do your "dig", what is your source address, what is your 
destination address, and what is your match-clients ACL for the internal view? 
These values have a bearing on what view you're going to match. Seems like 
you're matching the wrong view - the external one, which has no recursion -- 
and getting a mere "referral" for www.google.com (root 
nameservers) instead of an answer.
B) you say your internal view has "forwarders". Why? What's the purpose of 
that? To where are you forwarding? To public resolvers like Google? If you're 
forwarding to *yourself*, then either you created a forwarding loop, or (if you 
excluded your own IP in the match-clients ACL of the internal view) the 
forwarded query is matching the wrong view, without (as you show below) any 
allow-recursion exception, so, again, as expected you're getting a mere 
referral instead of an answer. Unless you're forwarding to an external entity 
that provides some added value (e.g. enhanced performance/availability, DNSSEC 
validation, blacklisting of known malicious domains, anti-forgery measures, 
etc.) consider just replacing the forwarder configuration with an appropriate 
"hints" zone definition in your internal view and letting it resolve names 
iteratively. You didn't say what platform you were migrating from, but if it 
was forwarding-centric, understand that forwarding is much less heavily used in 
the BIND world.

NOTE: if you want to publically post ACLs containing internal address ranges, 
it's fine to obfuscate those ranges, as long as you preserve their "essence", 
e.g. large-versus-small, public-versus-private-versus-localhost. It's only when 
folks obfuscate names and addresses that are publically-visible anyway, that 
the obfuscation sometimes gets in the way of diagnosing the problem and folks 
on this list get somewhat ornery. For the ultimate in Internet Engineering 
etiquette, use addresses based on the RFC 5737 "documentation only" ranges.



- Kevin

From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org 
[mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Okan Bostan
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 4:11 AM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: About query response on a view

Hello List,

We are planning to migrate to Bind dns, I'm a bit newbie.

In our design we have two views; int and ext.
As internal view, recursion is on and we have our internal zones & forwarders. 
I have no problem with internal view.

In external view, recursion in no. Also have some zones. In testing external 
view, I can query the records in zones, thats not a problem also.

But when I try to query, for example www.google.com it 
returns the root servers records by dig.

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;ww.IN  A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
.   518400  IN  NS  D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.   518400  IN  NS  E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.

And status: NOERROR

also in nslookup:

Name:www.google.com
Served by:
- E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

- A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

But in our existing DNS enviroment, I get  status: SERVFAIL to same query.
Is this a normal behaviour ? How can I disable this Authority section with root 
server NS records?

My external view:

view "EXTERNAL" {

match-clients {"any";};
allow-query-on {ext_ip; };

recursion  no;
allow-recursion { none;};


#Include SLAVE zones
include "slave.zones";

#Include REVERSE zones
include "reverse.zones";



};// view EXTERNAL

Regards,

Okan.
___
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: putting several master DNS hosts behind a vip

2015-12-09 Thread Grant Taylor 

On 12/09/15 16:32, blrmaani wrote:

I would like to put 4 DNS masters behind a vip and have several slaves doing 
the zone transfer from the VIP-IP. Is this normal?


I don't know that I would consider this normal per say.

I'm assuming that you are talking some sort of network load balancer, 
i.e. F5.


Are you maintaining state or load balancing in a stateless manner?

Stateless may interfere with TCP based transfers if the LB algorithm 
isn't at least maintaining state for that TCP session.



The usual approach is to have slaves getting zone transfers from multiple 
masters. What is the disadvantage of having slaves using just the vip and have 
all masters behind the vip?


If I were messing with hardware load balancers, I'd be tempted to employ 
redundancy.  I.e. have two (or more) load balancers in front of two (or 
more) back end servers.  I would also employ affinity for a given load 
balancer / back end server pair, with fall back to other back end servers.


Doing that would provide multiple VIPs to publish as DNS servers, while 
still allowing each of them to fall back to other back end servers if 
necessary.


Conceptually I don't see any problems from the network layer with what 
you are proposing.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
___
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: About query response on a view

2015-12-09 Thread Mark Elkins 
If you ever want to do DNSSEC - you are going to have a problem.

If possible - have two different servers, one for inside, one for
outside.

This could be:
(1) Two different machines
(2) One machine - virtualised - each of the two virtual machines
logically like (1)
(3) One machine with two IP addresses - one for an internal instance of
BIND (or UNBOUND or any recursive only software) - the other for
external - with BIND running Authoritatively only (or NSD or other
non-recursive system)

If you are currently running the same zone but the internal version
(view) has more information, that is - you are hiding "authoritative"
DNS information from the rest of the world - Consider why. Is it really
secret? is it on RFC1918 address space?

You could consider having a third machine (virtual or otherwise) for
that... there are multiple ways to have this working.

The purist in me says the External machine should be Authoritative only,
the Inside machine should contain No Authoritative info and that a Zone
can only have one set of information regardless of where its viewed
from.

(and never call a machine "secretproject.example.com")

Your conditions may not allow a purist solution.

And - I think the outside machine is providing a Referral to the Root in
reply to your query, which seems a reasonable thing to do.
 
On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 09:11 +, Okan Bostan wrote:
> Hello List,
> 
> We are planning to migrate to Bind dns, I’m a bit newbie. 
> 
> In our design we have two views; int and ext. 
> As internal view, recursion is on and we have our internal zones &
> forwarders. I have no problem with internal view.
> 
> In external view, recursion in no. Also have some zones. In testing
> external view, I can query the records in zones, thats not a problem
> also. 
> 
> But when I try to query, for example www.google.com it returns the
> root servers records by dig.
> 
>  
> 
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> 
> ;ww.IN  A
> 
>  
> 
> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> 
> .   518400  IN  NS  D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> 
> .   518400  IN  NS  M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> 
> .   518400  IN  NS  C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> 
> .   518400  IN  NS  J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> 
> .   518400  IN  NS  G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> 
> .   518400  IN  NS  H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> 
> .   518400  IN  NS  I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> 
> .   518400  IN  NS  L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> 
> .   518400  IN  NS  F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> 
> .   518400  IN  NS  K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> 
> .   518400  IN  NS  A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> 
> .   518400  IN  NS  B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> 
> .   518400  IN  NS  E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> 
>  
> 
> And status: NOERROR
> 
> 
> also in nslookup:
> 
> Name:www.google.com
> 
> Served by:
> 
> - E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
> 
>  
> 
> - F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
> 
>  
> 
> - J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
> 
>  
> 
> - G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
> 
>  
> 
> - D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
> 
>  
> 
> - C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
> 
>  
> 
> - A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> But in our existing DNS enviroment, I get  status: SERVFAIL to same
> query.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a normal behaviour ? How can I disable this Authority section
> with root server NS records?
> 
> My external view:
> 
> view "EXTERNAL" {
> 
>  
> 
> match-clients {"any";};
> 
> allow-query-on {ext_ip; };
> 
>  
> 
> recursion  no;
> 
> allow-recursion { none;};
> 
>
>   
> 
> #Include SLAVE zones
> 
> include "slave.zones";
> 
>  
> 
> #Include REVERSE zones
> 
> include “reverse.zones";
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> };// view EXTERNAL 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Okan.


-- 
Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
m...@posix.co.za   Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
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