Forwarding is a different beast from "stub" (recursive rather than iterative 
resolution).

I'd look at "static-stub", if your NS list is overgrown with 
useless/unreachable stuff. It's configured basically the same way as 
forwarding, but without making the paradigm shift (and possible unforeseen 
consequences) from iterative to recursive resolution.

http://jpmens.net/2011/01/25/binds-new-static-stub-zone-type/
https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/2012-September/088719.html

If you only have a *few*, relatively-static set of unreachables, you might 
consider listing just those ones as "bogus".

        - Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: bind-users [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van 
Dolson
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 8:29 AM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Stub Zone Behavior?

Have a resolver at a branch office with a view containing a stub zone as 
follows:

    zone "domain.com." IN {
        type stub;
        masters { 10.216.11.6; 10.58.4.1; 10.50.4.32; };
        file "stub/domain.com";
        forwarders {};
    };

Other notes:

- "domain.com" is an Active Directory zone.
- Running bind-9.8.2-0.47.rc1.el6.x86_64 (RHEL6)

This setup seemed to work fine for many months, but within the last two or so 
has randomly started returning no answers for only certain queries (well the 
SOA stuff is returned) until I rndc flush on the system after which response 
returns to normal for a period of time.

After trying a few things without success, I changed the zone type to forward 
instead of stub (with the servers used as masters in the stub config as the 
forwarders) and this has seemed to solved the problem.

As I understand it, stub zones work by pulling down SOA, NS and "glue"
for the NS from one of the masters into a local zone file and then queries to 
the domain are answered by querying one of the authoritative servers defined in 
the stub zone.

My working theory is that BIND will randomly choose one of the NS servers to 
get an answer from, and since our NS list is very long with the servers 
scattered across the globe, perhaps BIND chooses one which doesn't respond 
quickly enough or at all (or maybe badly?) and then caches that negative or 
absent response.

Probably in this case the forward type works just as well for our local clients 
at the office (I believe answers for "forward" zones can also be cached 
locally...), so am inclined to stand pat with this config but would still love 
to understand what might have caused the original stub setup to fail.

Ray
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to