Re: Paging HP DNS admin

2014-05-05 Thread Andris Kalnozols

On 5/3/2014 9:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Chris Adams c...@cmadams.net wrote:

Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com said:

...

Oddly, it seems to be specific to ; any other type request I send
comes back NOERROR correctly.  It is like somebody tried to handle 
special and screwed it up.


I remember nytimes doing something like this for a while, I believe
they said their GSLB was just not happy doing , or if not
configured would display similar behaviour.


Thanks for reporting this. I passed it on to the corp-IT people and
the issue appears to be fixed.  The problem was that someone forgot
to override the F5 default of *NOT* enabling a NODATA/NOERROR response
for  queries.  I have no idea why an opt-in would be required for
proper interoperability with RFC 1034 from 1987.  Then again, I have
zero experience with operating a load balancer appliance.

--
Andris




Re: Paging HP DNS admin

2014-05-05 Thread Mark Andrews

In message 5367fdce.6090...@hpl.hp.com, Andris Kalnozols writes:
 On 5/3/2014 9:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
  On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Chris Adams c...@cmadams.net wrote:
  Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com said:
 ...
  Oddly, it seems to be specific to ; any other type request I send
  comes back NOERROR correctly.  It is like somebody tried to handle 
  special and screwed it up.
 
  I remember nytimes doing something like this for a while, I believe
  they said their GSLB was just not happy doing , or if not
  configured would display similar behaviour.
 
 Thanks for reporting this. I passed it on to the corp-IT people and
 the issue appears to be fixed.  The problem was that someone forgot
 to override the F5 default of *NOT* enabling a NODATA/NOERROR response
 for  queries.  I have no idea why an opt-in would be required for
 proper interoperability with RFC 1034 from 1987.  Then again, I have
 zero experience with operating a load balancer appliance.
 
 --
 Andris

Can you please log a bug report with F5 about the defaults.  It
should answer all queries unless a backing nameserver has been
configured.

It should also sanity check the negative responses to ensure that
they have the correct SOA record from the backing server but that
is another issue.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org


Paging HP DNS admin

2014-05-03 Thread Mark Radabaugh

Dear HP:

If your not going to support IPv6 can you at least not return SRVFAIL 
when asked for an  record:


root@spoons:/etc/mail # dig  onramp01.hpeprint.com

;  DiG 9.8.3-P4   onramp01.hpeprint.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 61583
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;onramp01.hpeprint.com. IN  


And what genius thought that emailing documents to printers was a good 
idea in the first place?   Nothing like taking graphics, turning it into 
7 bit text, and sending it through a system never intended for the 
purpose.   Supporting luser email is a big enough pain in the arse, now 
I have to deal with your idiotic printers as well?   Gee thanks!


Mark




Re: Paging HP DNS admin

2014-05-03 Thread Scott Howard
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 6:27 AM, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net wrote:

 Dear HP:

 If your not going to support IPv6 can you at least not return SRVFAIL when
 asked for an  record:


They aren't.  Your resolver is - or at least, that's what it looks like for
me.

Sending an  query to their nameservers times out for me - no response
at all.  Sending the same query through certain resolvers (eg, Google)
seems to result in the timeout being turned into a SERVFAIL.

$ dig  onramp01.hpeprint.com

;  DiG 9.8.4-rpz2+rl005.12-P1   onramp01.hpeprint.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached


Same via Google :
$ dig  onramp01.hpeprint.com @8.8.8.8

;  DiG 9.8.4-rpz2+rl005.12-P1   onramp01.hpeprint.com @8.8.8.8
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 26319
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0


  Scott


Re: Paging HP DNS admin

2014-05-03 Thread Mark Radabaugh
Either way - it breaks Sendmail, some versions of Exchange, and possibly 
other MTA's.   The proper answer to a non-existent  record is 
NOERROR, with ANSWER 0.


Hanging or refusing to answer doesn't result in another attempt to look 
for an A record since the name server failed to respond to a valid 
query.   Given that the whole point of the domain is to enable email 
printing, HP isn't making it easy.


Mark

On 5/3/14, 4:18 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 6:27 AM, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net 
mailto:m...@amplex.net wrote:


Dear HP:

If your not going to support IPv6 can you at least not return
SRVFAIL when asked for an  record:


They aren't.  Your resolver is - or at least, that's what it looks 
like for me.


Sending an  query to their nameservers times out for me - no 
response at all.  Sending the same query through certain resolvers 
(eg, Google) seems to result in the timeout being turned into a SERVFAIL.


$ dig  onramp01.hpeprint.com http://onramp01.hpeprint.com

;  DiG 9.8.4-rpz2+rl005.12-P1   onramp01.hpeprint.com 
http://onramp01.hpeprint.com

;; global options: +cmd
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached


Same via Google :
$ dig  onramp01.hpeprint.com http://onramp01.hpeprint.com 
@8.8.8.8 http://8.8.8.8


;  DiG 9.8.4-rpz2+rl005.12-P1   onramp01.hpeprint.com 
http://onramp01.hpeprint.com @8.8.8.8 http://8.8.8.8

;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 26319
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0


  Scott




--
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex

m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021



Re: Paging HP DNS admin

2014-05-03 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Mark Radabaugh m...@amplex.net wrote:
 Either way - it breaks Sendmail, some versions of Exchange, and possibly
 other MTA's.   The proper answer to a non-existent  record is NOERROR,
 with ANSWER 0.

if I ask ns1/2/3/4/5/6.hp.com directly for  for onramp01.hpeprint.com.:

;  DiG 9.8.1-P1   onramp01.hpeprint.com. @ns6.hp.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 30318
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 6, ADDITIONAL: 6
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;onramp01.hpeprint.com. IN  

(I get the same result for all ns hosts)

if I ask my local bind (ubuntu package == 1:9.8.1.dfsg.P) though I get:
$ dig  onramp01.hpeprint.com @localhost

;  DiG 9.8.1-P1   onramp01.hpeprint.com @localhost
;; global options: +cmd
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached

That's a bit weird and frustrating.

 Hanging or refusing to answer doesn't result in another attempt to look for
 an A record since the name server failed to respond to a valid query.
 Given that the whole point of the domain is to enable email printing, HP
 isn't making it easy.

scott's request LOOKS like  a request to 'some resolver' (not directly
to them, perhaps his local bind instance?  I wonder why 8.8.8.8
returns srvfail? I think one of the google-public-dns people reads
nanog, perhaps he knows? (or could fix this which seems to be a bug,
to me at least)

-chris


Re: Paging HP DNS admin

2014-05-03 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com said:
 if I ask ns1/2/3/4/5/6.hp.com directly for  for onramp01.hpeprint.com.:
 
 ;  DiG 9.8.1-P1   onramp01.hpeprint.com. @ns6.hp.com
 ;; global options: +cmd
 ;; Got answer:
 ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 30318
 ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 6, ADDITIONAL: 6
 ;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available
 
 ;; QUESTION SECTION:
 ;onramp01.hpeprint.com. IN  

You left out the authority section that refers you to the correct DNS
servers - ns[1-6].hp.com are not it.  They delegate to another set of HP
servers, which all time out (as stated by the OP) when asked for .

Oddly, it seems to be specific to ; any other type request I send
comes back NOERROR correctly.  It is like somebody tried to handle 
special and screwed it up.

-- 
Chris Adams c...@cmadams.net


Re: Paging HP DNS admin

2014-05-03 Thread Scott Howard
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Chris Adams c...@cmadams.net wrote:

 You left out the authority section that refers you to the correct DNS
 servers - ns[1-6].hp.com are not it.  They delegate to another set of HP
 servers, which all time out (as stated by the OP) when asked for .


Actually the OP said that it returned SERVFAIL, which the HP servers don't,
but Googles public DNS server (and potentially others) does.


 Oddly, it seems to be specific to ; any other type request I send
 comes back NOERROR correctly.  It is like somebody tried to handle 
 special and screwed it up.


This isn't new.  RFC 4074 from 2005 covers this exact issue.  From memory,
this is/was the default behavior for DJBDNS.

  Scott


Re: Paging HP DNS admin

2014-05-03 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Chris Adams c...@cmadams.net wrote:
 Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com said:
 if I ask ns1/2/3/4/5/6.hp.com directly for  for onramp01.hpeprint.com.:

 ;  DiG 9.8.1-P1   onramp01.hpeprint.com. @ns6.hp.com
 ;; global options: +cmd
 ;; Got answer:
 ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 30318
 ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 6, ADDITIONAL: 6
 ;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

 ;; QUESTION SECTION:
 ;onramp01.hpeprint.com. IN  

 You left out the authority section that refers you to the correct DNS

darned it :( yes.

 servers - ns[1-6].hp.com are not it.  They delegate to another set of HP
 servers, which all time out (as stated by the OP) when asked for .


yup :(

 Oddly, it seems to be specific to ; any other type request I send
 comes back NOERROR correctly.  It is like somebody tried to handle 
 special and screwed it up.

I remember nytimes doing something like this for a while, I believe
they said their GSLB was just not happy doing , or if not
configured would display similar behaviour.

-chris