?
Regards
On 9 December 2012 13:32, Romgo ro...@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
yes I have a db.root file which contains Root servers.
/etc/resolv.conf is configured to ask to him self.
Forward is not configured at zone level, it is specified in
named.conf.options
In an option{} block, so I guess
don't have any new queries to the root zone.
According to what I read about forward only :
it doesn't try to contact other name servers to find information if the
forwarders don't give it an answer.
I had exactly opposite behaviour.
Thank you for the help !
On 10 December 2012 11:52, Romgo
is my conf for root zone :
// prime the server with knowledge of the root servers
zone . {
type hint;
file /etc/bind/db.root;
};
should I try to force forwarders in zone . ?
On 8 December 2012 20:22, Romgo ro...@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
yes I have a db.root file which contains Root
Hello,
I am currently running two bind9 server on Debian Squeeze.
1:9.7.3.dfsg-1~squeeze8
Server 1 is internal dns server and serve some local zone. This server
should forward all unknown requests to our public DNS server. So I
configured this server as follow :
/etc/bind/named.conf.options
. Forward first
is default but will fall back to no forwarding if the forwarders fail.
On Dec 7, 2012 12:06 PM, Romgo ro...@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
I am currently running two bind9 server on Debian Squeeze.
1:9.7.3.dfsg-1~squeeze8
Server 1 is internal dns server and serve some local zone
I see, but It should be statefull right ?
On 12 March 2012 23:57, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message
caaoqnkg-xfkws_fen9kedub7w19vf4jocsfp52lb8ixv5+g...@mail.gmail.com
, Romgo writes:
Here is my Iptables configuration for bind :
# prod.dns.in
$IPTABLES -t filter
All right.
this seems to correct the issue.
But that's the first time I had to open the firewall for a packet answer.
weird.
Thanks for the help.
On 13 March 2012 10:19, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Romgo ro...@free.fr:
I see, but It should be statefull right ?
If using
Dear community,
I do have many error in my Bind's log file such as :
client 192.168.201.1#29404: error sending response: host unreachable
It seems that I have an iptables issue as each time I shut iptables I don't
have anymore this message showing up.
I saw that my firewall is dropping packets
, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Romgo wrote:
Here is my Iptables configuration for bind :
# prod.dns.in
$IPTABLES -t filter -A INPUT -j LOGACCEPT -p udp --dport 53 -i eth1-d
192.168.201.2 -s 0/0
$IPTABLES -t filter -A INPUT -j LOGACCEPT -p tcp --dport 53 -i eth1 -d
192.168.201.2 -s 0/0
Shouldn't
Hello,
I know that I can use VIP with any software (corosync, Linux HA...) But
this will not explain the origin of the issue I am facing :)
Even if I use a VIP I can reproduce the issue :
If the first VIP (so the nameserver 1) is down, I'll have the same
drawbacks. As the resolver will timeout
Hello,
thanks for the answer. That was my first change :
/etc/resolv.conf like :
domain example.fr
search example.fr example2.fr
nameserver 192.168.0.1
nameserver 192.168.0.2
options rotate
options timeout:1
options attempts:1
This works fine.
But the issue is now mainly coming from the client
Dear community,
I use bind on my network as DNS Server. Running bind 1:9.6.ESV.R4+dfsg-0+lenny4
on Debian Lenny.
The setup is quite usual : one master server with one slave server.
The slave sync the zone from the master.
I discover that when the master is down I have some trouble to access to
12 matches
Mail list logo
