Re: Akadns and Bind

2011-02-04 Thread Warren Kumari

On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Chris Buxton wrote:

> +trace does not do what you think it does. It does not query the target name 
> server for each successive query. Rather, it causes the 'dig' command to 
> perform recursion on its own, only using the indicated server (@server) to 
> seed its root server list.

Ok, so this is at least the 6th time (that I can remember) that the behavior of 
+trace and @server has caused confusion on the list --- perhaps it is worth 
opening a feature request to make dig present an informational message if these 
2 options are chosen?

W

> +trace also stops at the CNAME, and does not restart the recursion process as 
> needed to track down the final A record(s).
> 
> Perform the trace manually, using either +dnssec or at least +bufsize=4096. 
> For example, one step in the process will look like this:
> 
> dig +bufsize=4096 +norec www.yahoo.com @ns1.yahoo.com
> 
> You will find that the Yahoo load balancers do not understand EDNS0. This 
> might be part of the problem, although named should be able to work around 
> this automatically. Check the log file (or configure logging as needed and 
> re-run the query against your problem server) to see if it will tell you 
> exactly what the problem is.
> 
> Chris Buxton
> BlueCat Networks
> 
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Tory M Blue wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Barry Margolin  wrote:
>>> In article >> SNIPPED<
>>> www.yahoo.com.300   IN CNAME fp.wg1.b.yahoo.com.
>>> 
>>> And even when they did, it didn't get involved until you followed the
>>> CNAME returned for www.yahoo.com.  Your log message above indicates an
>>> issue just with the yahoo.com domain, not resolution of the CNAME target.
>>> 
>>> --
>> Thanks Barry so maybe I need some further education
>> 
>> 
>> [tblue@mx3 ~]$ dig @problemserver.net  www.yahoo.com
>> 
>> ; <<>> DiG 9.6.2-P2-RedHat-9.6.2-5.P2.fc12 <<>> @problemserver.net 
>> www.yahoo.com
>> ; (1 server found)
>> ;; global options: +cmd
>> ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
>> 
>> So let's add the trace option (Same servers)
>> 
>> [tblue@mx3 ~]$ dig @problemserver.net  www.yahoo.com  +trace
>> 
>> ; <<>> DiG 9.6.2-P2-RedHat-9.6.2-5.P2.fc12 <<>> @problemserver.net
>> www.yahoo.com +trace
>> ; (1 server found)
>> ;; global options: +cmd
>> .514246  IN  NS  f.root-servers.net.
>> .514246  IN  NS  b.root-servers.net.
>> .514246  IN  NS  e.root-servers.net.
>> .514246  IN  NS  a.root-servers.net.
>> .514246  IN  NS  l.root-servers.net.
>> .514246  IN  NS  k.root-servers.net.
>> .514246  IN  NS  i.root-servers.net.
>> .514246  IN  NS  d.root-servers.net.
>> .514246  IN  NS  c.root-servers.net.
>> .514246  IN  NS  m.root-servers.net.
>> .514246  IN  NS  j.root-servers.net.
>> .514246  IN  NS  h.root-servers.net.
>> .514246  IN  NS  g.root-servers.net.
>> ;; Received 336 bytes from 10.13.255.101#53(10.13.255.101) in 1 ms
>> 
>> com. 172800  IN  NS  a.gtld-servers.net.
>> com. 172800  IN  NS  b.gtld-servers.net.
>> com. 172800  IN  NS  c.gtld-servers.net.
>> com. 172800  IN  NS  d.gtld-servers.net.
>> com. 172800  IN  NS  e.gtld-servers.net.
>> com. 172800  IN  NS  f.gtld-servers.net.
>> com. 172800  IN  NS  g.gtld-servers.net.
>> com. 172800  IN  NS  h.gtld-servers.net.
>> com. 172800  IN  NS  i.gtld-servers.net.
>> com. 172800  IN  NS  j.gtld-servers.net.
>> com. 172800  IN  NS  k.gtld-servers.net.
>> com. 172800  IN  NS  l.gtld-servers.net.
>> com. 172800  IN  NS  m.gtld-servers.net.
>> ;; Received 494 bytes from 199.7.83.42#53(l.root-servers.net) in 11 ms
>> 
>> yahoo.com.   172800  IN  NS  ns1.yahoo.com.
>> yahoo.com.   172800  IN  NS  ns5.yahoo.com.
>> yahoo.com.   172800  IN  NS  ns2.yahoo.com.
>> yahoo.com.   172800  IN  NS  ns3.yahoo.com.
>> yahoo.com.   172800  IN  NS  ns4.yahoo.com.
>> ;; Received 201 bytes from 192.31.80.30#53(d.gtld-servers.net) in 55 ms
>> 
>> www.yahoo.com.   300 IN  CNAME   fp.wg1.b.yahoo.com.
>> wg1.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN  NS  yf2.yahoo.com.
>> wg1.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN  NS  yf4.yahoo.com.
>> wg1.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN  NS  yf8.yahoo.com.
>> wg1.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN  NS  yf3.yahoo.com.
>> wg1.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN  NS

Re: Delegation question

2011-02-04 Thread Barry Margolin
In article ,
 Jean-Yves Avenard  wrote:

> Actually I just found what caused it not to work ; I have forwarders
> set ; If I comment-out the forwarders line ; then everything work as
> it should
> 
> Can't delegation works if forwarders are enabled ?

No.  When you have forwarders configured, it means "When you need to 
recurse to answer a query, forward the query to the forwarders instead 
of following delegation records."

Why did you configure forwarders in the first place if your server can 
follow delegations?  Do you think there's a difference between 
delegations from your own zone (you want to follow) and delegations from 
the root (you want to use the forwarders)?

You can override the general forwarders option by configuring a 
forwarding zone:

zone "mel.domain.com" {
  type forward;
  forwarders {};
};

The empty forwarders clause in here disables forwarders, so it follows 
delegations.

-- 
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


SO_ACCEPTFILTER in FreeBSD (Was: Re: ISC BIND 9.6.3 is now available)

2011-02-04 Thread Doug Barton

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 02/04/2011 16:09, Evan Hunt wrote:
|   * A bug in NetBSD and FreeBSD kernels with SO_ACCEPTFILTER enabled
| allows for a TCP DoS attack. Until there is a kernel fix, ISC is
| disabling SO_ACCEPTFILTER support in BIND. [RT #22589]

This is the first I'm hearing about this problem, and a search of the
FreeBSD PR database didn't turn up any hits. If I've missed a memo, my
apologies. Could you point me in the right direction? This is clearly
something that we'd like to see addressed, and particularly given that
we have 2 releases fairly immediately pending, if there is a serious bug
in our kernel we'd like to know.


Thanks,

Doug

- -- 


Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go

Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJNTLsaAAoJEFzGhvEaGryEIvkIAIktb8VCYWRZgpueXFSeTT6Z
AE776GJYTPzPHW4aE8vXF7PMyNOE2hlSUVxdzf6jM8EwZtfuf0lErbh3ySih4qzd
FLjGqIl2Od3WwBu5K0T+y3A6tHk1+UAmEGJQHXYQArjTCwjMA3rzd5x+lXxyNlKk
QEd/86iCeGyOb/WCcdRGEYRrvSw05qI61Snd0RyqIhJjPmJTQ6/KbXGl1jyo4d0q
GIIbwnci0uNCYdmY0m30J+tZmmmus0Novf4iBMHJpyLdSvTw4EnUGPLJIDDcOsSE
HcqFCXexV2EwuV4Ss/lkPZJHEwzIKtyU1o5PGS/4YB0hl7JOi4jB4gCYaIofH/U=
=ie9b
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


TC Header Bit Question

2011-02-04 Thread Andris Kalnozols
RFC 2181, section 9, indicates that name servers should not set
the TC bit gratuitously; as long as the answer section is complete,
TC should not be set just because the authority and/or additional
sections won't also fit in the UDP packet.

Using BIND (9.4.3-P3 and 9.7.2-P3) as a resolver doesn't follow
this recommendation, however, when querying for the A records
of an internal domain consisting of 24 Active Directory domain
controllers:

  ;; Truncated, retrying in TCP mode.

  ; <<>> DiG 9.7.2-P3 <<>> americas.cpqcorp.net.
  ;; global options: +cmd
  ;; Got answer:
  ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 49806
  ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 24, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: 6
  ...
  ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 821

The TC bit is *not* set and only the 24-record answer section is
returned in the following circumstances:

  1. Configuring the "minimal-responses yes" option
 (returned message size is 422).
  2. Adding a "+bufsize=512" option to the dig command
 (returned message size is 433).
  3. Querying the MS domain controller directly
 (returned message size is 422).

Granted, the RFC states "should" instead of "must" and the set
TC bit did reveal a misconfigured firewall that otherwise would
have probably gone unnoticed.  I'm just curious to know if this
is a feature or an oversight.

--
Andris

___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


ISC BIND 9.6.3 is now available

2011-02-04 Thread Evan Hunt
 __

Introduction

   BIND 9.6.3 is the current release of BIND 9.6.

   This document summarizes changes from BIND 9.6.2-P2 to BIND 9.6.3.
   Please see the CHANGES file in the source code release for a complete
   list of all changes.

Download

   The latest development version of BIND 9 software can always be found
   on our web site at http://www.isc.org/downloads/development. There you
   will find additional information about each release, source code, and
   some pre-compiled versions for certain operating systems.

Support

   Product support information is available on
   http://www.isc.org/services/support for paid support options. Free
   support is provided by our user community via a mailing list.
   Information on all public email lists is available at
   https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo.

New Features

9.6.3

   None.

Feature Changes

9.6.3

   None.

Security Fixes

9.6.2-P3

 * Adding a NO DATA signed negative response to cache failed to clear
   any matching RRSIG records already in cache. A subsequent lookup of
   the cached NO DATA entry could crash named (INSIST) when the
   unexpected RRSIG was also returned with the NO DATA cache entry.
   [RT #22288] [CVE-2010-3613] [VU#706148]
 * BIND, acting as a DNSSEC validator, was determining if the NS RRset
   is insecure based on a value that could mean either that the RRset
   is actually insecure or that there wasn't a matching key for the
   RRSIG in the DNSKEY RRset when resuming from validating the DNSKEY
   RRset. This can happen when in the middle of a DNSKEY algorithm
   rollover, when two different algorithms were used to sign a zone
   but only the new set of keys are in the zone DNSKEY RRset. [RT
   #22309] [CVE-2010-3614] [VU#837744]

Bug Fixes

9.6.3

 * BIND now builds with threads disabled in versions of NetBSD earlier
   than 5.0 and with pthreads enabled by default in NetBSD versions
   5.0 and higher. Also removes support for unproven-pthreads,
   mit-pthreads and ptl2. [RT #19203]
 * HPUX now correctly defaults to using /dev/poll, which should
   increase performance. [RT #21919]
 * If named is running as a threaded application, after an "rndc stop"
   command has been issued, other inbound TCP requests can cause named
   to hang and never complete shutdown. [RT #22108]
 * When performing a GSS-TSIG signed dynamic zone update, memory could
   be leaked. This causes an unclean shutdown and may affect
   long-running servers. [RT #22573]
 * A bug in NetBSD and FreeBSD kernels with SO_ACCEPTFILTER enabled
   allows for a TCP DoS attack. Until there is a kernel fix, ISC is
   disabling SO_ACCEPTFILTER support in BIND. [RT #22589]
 * Corrected a defect where a combination of dynamic updates and zone
   transfers incorrectly locked the in-memory zone database, causing
   named to freeze. [RT #22614]
 * Don't run MX checks (check-mx) when the MX record points to ".".
   [RT #22645]
 * DST key reference counts can now be incremented via dst_key_attach.
   [RT #22672]
 * isc_mutex_init_errcheck() in phtreads/mutex.c failed to destroy
   attr. [RT #22766]
 * The Kerberos realm was being truncated when being pulled from the
   the host prinicipal, make krb5-self updates fail. [RT #22770]
 * named failed to preserve the case of domain names in RDATA which is
   not compressible when writing master files. [RT #22863]
 * There was a bug in how the clients-per-query code worked with some
   query patterns. This could result, in rare circumstances, in having
   all the client query slots filled with queries for the same DNS
   label, essentially ignoring the max-clients-per-query setting. [RT
   #22972]

9.6.2-P3

 * Worked around a race condition in the cache database memory
   handling. Without this fix a DNS cache DB or ADB could incorrectly
   stay in an over memory state, effectively refusing further caching,
   which subsequently made a BIND 9 caching server unworkable. [RT
   #21818]
 * Microsoft changed the behavior of sockets between NT/XP based
   stacks vs Vista/windows7 stacks. Server 2003/2008 have the older
   behavior, 2008r2 has the new behavior. With the change, different
   error results are possible, so ISC adapted BIND to handle the new
   error results. This resolves an issue where sockets would shut down
   on Windows servers causing named to stop responding to queries. [RT
   #21906]
 * Windows has non-POSIX compliant behavior in its rename() and
   unlink() calls. This caused journal compaction to fail on Windows
   BIND servers with the log error: "dns_journal_compact failed:
   failure". [RT #22434]

Thank You

   Thank you to everyone who assisted us in making this release possible.
   If you w

Public Advisory on DNSSEC Failures with New DS Records

2011-02-04 Thread Larissa Shapiro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Colleagues,

ISC has issued a public advisory regarding the DNSSEC issue raised on
this list earlier this week. All operators who use or plan to use DNSSEC
should take careful note, prior to the addition of .com to the signed
root at the end of March. The full advisory is located at:

https://www.isc.org/announcement/bind-9-dnssec-validation-fails-new-ds-record

Please do not hesitate to contact us directly with any questions
regarding this matter.

Larissa

Larissa Shapiro
ISC Product Manager
laris...@isc.org
+1 650 423-1335
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNTJWUAAoJEBOIp87tasiUcJUH/0ojZQGLCB2bI31fo7U2OBW3
Ft00kxiMH/bM+EnO+l2aM9SVsPAZBPv9vsP3zvJYOpYPLgxMyap/HwIXmrwu37de
gh7cpPAFD48dWK5Txby5F/GMDobbT1UiTTr3BtTGdCHY744siR4w0fNIEbnRLtKB
RNUxXRrt/csMs1YQNn05bI4HIooZ8VgNc9pt7c0YcP5+ZWfMJRRnqFGcNxgGxDMt
wD5oZ7bej5F035WZhdRpB+rFYvbJ/pKRj3GBYH0yQgI1wRmk92KozPOtGfa0Gjj8
yEJ8Cg1jgGHLtZcjCxqEqaX3XkKWL5D1l0mkt8uq7ut9WWOgIPDpqaF/6aToOnU=
=zNed
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Akadns and Bind

2011-02-04 Thread Mark Andrews

In message , Tory
 M Blue writes:
> > So that was the trace between the client and the nameserver. =A0What
> > about the trace between the nameserver and the rest of the world?
> >
> > The log message is trigger by multiple queries from your nameserver
> > not being answered and named falling back simpler queries in a
> > attempt to get them answered. =A0The log message says how much simpler
> > it made the query before it succeeded. =A0It doesn't tell you the
> > cause because it doesn't know.
> >
> > Mark
> 
> But Mark
> 
> Here is where I lose it. the network between the ns server and the
> world is fine, as proven by the 100's, thousands of looks ups i have
> done with no issue, other than www.yahoo.com and yahoo.com.
> 
> The only possible scenario is they are doing some blocking, however
> that doesn't hold water either since both the functioning and non
> functioning name server go out to the world as the same IP. So if
> yahoo was doing any sort of rate limiting or other my other DNS server
> would exhibit the same issue.
> 
> It's very obvious that while this working server can resolve any
> number of domains, yahoo and www.yahoo.com do not. I've shown that my
> client can access the name server, so the request is being made, but
> what the name server is doing with it is the question. I will attempt
> to grab the traffic from this server at the router, a few hops up and
> see if that helps. But again yahoo only? Just !=3Dnetwork issue in my
> eyes. But I'll test, just really frustrating and turning on query
> logging doesn't seem to provide much use, is there something else I
> can enable in bind to help trace what the server is doing with these
> queries?

I've seen plenty of wierd errors over the years.  Two machines 1 IP address
apart.  One worked one doesn't.  A reboot of a router in the middle of the
net was needed to fix that one.  Just look at the traffic and trace the fault.

> Thanks
> Tory
> ___
> 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
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Akadns and Bind

2011-02-04 Thread Tory M Blue
> So that was the trace between the client and the nameserver.  What
> about the trace between the nameserver and the rest of the world?
>
> The log message is trigger by multiple queries from your nameserver
> not being answered and named falling back simpler queries in a
> attempt to get them answered.  The log message says how much simpler
> it made the query before it succeeded.  It doesn't tell you the
> cause because it doesn't know.
>
> Mark

But Mark

Here is where I lose it. the network between the ns server and the
world is fine, as proven by the 100's, thousands of looks ups i have
done with no issue, other than www.yahoo.com and yahoo.com.

The only possible scenario is they are doing some blocking, however
that doesn't hold water either since both the functioning and non
functioning name server go out to the world as the same IP. So if
yahoo was doing any sort of rate limiting or other my other DNS server
would exhibit the same issue.

It's very obvious that while this working server can resolve any
number of domains, yahoo and www.yahoo.com do not. I've shown that my
client can access the name server, so the request is being made, but
what the name server is doing with it is the question. I will attempt
to grab the traffic from this server at the router, a few hops up and
see if that helps. But again yahoo only? Just !=network issue in my
eyes. But I'll test, just really frustrating and turning on query
logging doesn't seem to provide much use, is there something else I
can enable in bind to help trace what the server is doing with these
queries?

Thanks
Tory
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Akadns and Bind

2011-02-04 Thread Mark Andrews

In message , Tory
 M Blue writes:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Florian Weimer  wrote:
> > * Tory M. Blue:
> >
> >> [tblue@mx3 ~]$ dig @problemserver.net =A0www.yahoo.com =A0+trace
> >
> > Please use "dig @problemserver.net www.yahoo.com +trace +norecurse
> > +dnssec", to match more closely the queires that BIND would send.
> 
> Okay thanks, done that as well as provided the tcpdump information.
> The server is being queried it just fails to resolve yahoo but can
> resolve all others.
> 
> [tblue@tblue-laptop ~]$ dig @problemserver.net  www.yahoo.com
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.6.2-P2-RedHat-9.6.2-5.P2.fc12 <<>> @problemserver.net www.yaho=
> o.com
> ; (1 server found)
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
> 
> 
> [tblue@tblue-laptop ~]$ dig @probelmserver.net.net  www.yahoo.com
> +trace +norecurse +dnssec
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.6.2-P2-RedHat-9.6.2-5.P2.fc12 <<>> @problemserver.net
> www.yahoo.com +trace +norecurse +dnssec
> ; (1 server found)
> ;; global options: +cmd
> . 444545  IN  NS  g.root-servers.net.
> . 444545  IN  NS  h.root-servers.net.
> . 444545  IN  NS  b.root-servers.net.
> . 444545  IN  NS  a.root-servers.net.
> . 444545  IN  NS  j.root-servers.net.
> . 444545  IN  NS  e.root-servers.net.
> . 444545  IN  NS  l.root-servers.net.
> . 444545  IN  NS  m.root-servers.net.
> . 444545  IN  NS  d.root-servers.net.
> . 444545  IN  NS  i.root-servers.net.
> . 444545  IN  NS  f.root-servers.net.
> . 444545  IN  NS  c.root-servers.net.
> . 444545  IN  NS  k.root-servers.net.
> . 444545  IN  RRSIG   NS 8 0 518400 2011021000 20
> 11020223 21639
> . RdUUiw5gKXpACWIw/O94nxHWSzx5kP62zEhy/kuD8IvY6q1Mbv0GccwL
> AErMQu3jlWC+3OMsYQmClticjC5eUkuIyvMQikeihkKty6J4IuaoTMYu
> Xctg2R8QDgIhasF7kNOqdr/Akfk5A2kaeW+jE7OhikMnNUyvi5Ph+ORW XrE=3D
> ;; Received 441 bytes from 10.13.255.102#53(10.13.255.102) in 36 ms
> 
> com.  172800  IN  NS  a.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  b.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  c.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  d.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  e.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  f.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  g.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  h.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  i.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  j.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  k.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  l.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  m.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  86400   IN  NSECcoop. NS RRSIG NSEC
> com.  86400   IN  RRSIG   NSEC 8 1 86400 2011021100 2
> 011020323
> 21639 . gR5+PdxFQpmd+bLdUdWH0qmumxkOOwW5PI0Yb0/XwxBGo5NC3UesAUWl
> PHp5X+6vlhqeJhzZnJRC2XHKFl3LbSnxgvXX3eiGQ8opoSCuF2IqKX3h
> hGXHqmKvV/bsXJY5FvjfrDMWQYSTS4tt9lURSlBAuJd1jWi+uXtMfafF U0o=3D
> ;; Received 718 bytes from 193.0.14.129#53(k.root-servers.net) in 121 ms
> 
> yahoo.com.172800  IN  NS  ns1.yahoo.com.
> yahoo.com.172800  IN  NS  ns5.yahoo.com.
> yahoo.com.172800  IN  NS  ns2.yahoo.com.
> yahoo.com.172800  IN  NS  ns3.yahoo.com.
> yahoo.com.172800  IN  NS  ns4.yahoo.com.
> ;; Received 212 bytes from 192.43.172.30#53(i.gtld-servers.net) in 38 ms
> 
> www.yahoo.com.300 IN  CNAME   fp.wg1.b.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf2.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf5.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf1.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf8.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf6.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf3.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf4.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf7.yahoo.com.
> ;; Received 337 bytes from 68.142.196.63#53(ns4.yahoo.com) in 58 ms
> 
> 
> I don't see it resolving to an A record, seems to stop after providing
> a CNAME entry.
> 
> Also the server in question can easily get to microsoft.com,
> google.com (I mean resolve), it's just www.yahoo.com and this am it's
> actually yahoo.com as well.
> 
> [tblue@tblue-laptop ~]$ dig @ns2.sv.admission.net  yahoo.com
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.6.2-P2-RedHat-9.6.2-5.P2.fc12

Re: Delegation question

2011-02-04 Thread Joseph S D Yao
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 09:55:07PM +1100, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> Hi there..
> 
> I'm trying to create a delegation to a sub-domain ; for some reasons
> I'm getting no-where
> 
> I have a domain.com zone ; I'd like to delegate mel.domain.com to
> another dns server (windows server DNS fwiw)
> Here is my zone file:
...
> domain.com. IN SOA  m.domain.com. domainmaster.domain.com. (
...
> )
> NS  m.domain.com.
> MX  0 mail.domain.com.
...
> A   192.168.0.2
> ; glue record
> m   A   192.168.0.2
> mel  A  192.168.0.3
> ; NS ad.domain.com
> ad  A   192.168.0.3
> ---
> 
> when NS ad.domain.com line is commented out ; querying for
> mel.domain.com is properly resolved:
> 
> bash-3.2# dig @192.168.0.2  mel.domain.com
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 <<>> @192.168.0.2 mel.domain.com
...
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> mel.domain.com.   7200IN  A   192.168.0.3
...
> Now if I uncomment the NS ad.domain.com. mel.domain.com will not
> resolve anymore:
> 
> bash-3.2# dig @192.168.0.2  mel.domain.com
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 <<>> @192.168.0.2 mel.domain.com
...
> For what it's worth; ad.domain.com (the other dns server) properly
> answer the query:
> bash-3.2# dig @192.168.0.3  mel.domain.com
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 <<>> @192.168.0.3 mel.domain.com
...
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> mel.domain.com.   600 IN  A   192.168.0.3
...


As someone else mentioned, the main problem was the lack of a period
('.') at the end of the delegating server name.

I don't remember anyone saying outright that, once you have delegated
the domain, any records intended for that domain in the delegating
domain are completely ignored.  [It was hinted at.]  In other words,
the "A" record for "mel" above gets ignored when delegation is on.  [So
I always put the delegated domain name explicitly in front of a
delegating NS record line.]

Also, you have a pair of completely useless $ORIGIN lines in your file.
I find it very rare that $ORIGIN lines are actually useful in master
copies of zone files.  Mostly they confuse, especially if they are
sufficiently far away from where one is focused in the file that one is
not aware how the domain has changed.  [In machine-generated files such
as slaved copies of zone files, it's not expected that humans will be
reading the file, so confusion is not a consideration.]

Teaching texts should use comments rather than $ORIGIN lines to indicate
what the domain is at given points in a zone file.

IMHO, of course.


--
/*\
**
** Joe Yao  j...@tux.org - Joseph S. D. Yao
**
\*/
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: what's a valid domain name?

2011-02-04 Thread Joseph S D Yao
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 11:26:08AM -0500, John Wobus wrote:
> So 10.14.22.11 is a legal hostname, right?
> 
> We had a recent experience where our DNS administration
> system allowed someone to insert in a CNAME record that
> resembled this:
> 
> www.example.com. CNAME 10.14.22.11.
> 
> A fascinating thing about this is that my computer/browser could
> take me to www.example.com just fine.


I'm guessing that someone stuck records like:

10.14.22.11 A   10.14.22.11

in your system at Cornell?  Otherwise, normally, the CNAME record above
would cause errors (i.e., if "10.14.22.11" were not a name, as well).

You can't check this with 'nslookup' - you need to use 'dig'.  [Nobody
need respond with the well-known merits and failings of 'nslookup'.]


--
/*\
**
** Joe Yao  j...@tux.org - Joseph S. D. Yao
**
\*/
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Akadns and Bind

2011-02-04 Thread Tory M Blue
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Florian Weimer  wrote:
> * Tory M. Blue:
>
>> [tblue@mx3 ~]$ dig @problemserver.net  www.yahoo.com  +trace
>
> Please use "dig @problemserver.net www.yahoo.com +trace +norecurse
> +dnssec", to match more closely the queires that BIND would send.

Okay thanks, done that as well as provided the tcpdump information.
The server is being queried it just fails to resolve yahoo but can
resolve all others.

[tblue@tblue-laptop ~]$ dig @problemserver.net  www.yahoo.com

; <<>> DiG 9.6.2-P2-RedHat-9.6.2-5.P2.fc12 <<>> @problemserver.net www.yahoo.com
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached


[tblue@tblue-laptop ~]$ dig @probelmserver.net.net  www.yahoo.com
+trace +norecurse +dnssec

; <<>> DiG 9.6.2-P2-RedHat-9.6.2-5.P2.fc12 <<>> @problemserver.net
www.yahoo.com +trace +norecurse +dnssec
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
.   444545  IN  NS  g.root-servers.net.
.   444545  IN  NS  h.root-servers.net.
.   444545  IN  NS  b.root-servers.net.
.   444545  IN  NS  a.root-servers.net.
.   444545  IN  NS  j.root-servers.net.
.   444545  IN  NS  e.root-servers.net.
.   444545  IN  NS  l.root-servers.net.
.   444545  IN  NS  m.root-servers.net.
.   444545  IN  NS  d.root-servers.net.
.   444545  IN  NS  i.root-servers.net.
.   444545  IN  NS  f.root-servers.net.
.   444545  IN  NS  c.root-servers.net.
.   444545  IN  NS  k.root-servers.net.
.   444545  IN  RRSIG   NS 8 0 518400 2011021000 
2011020223 21639
. RdUUiw5gKXpACWIw/O94nxHWSzx5kP62zEhy/kuD8IvY6q1Mbv0GccwL
AErMQu3jlWC+3OMsYQmClticjC5eUkuIyvMQikeihkKty6J4IuaoTMYu
Xctg2R8QDgIhasF7kNOqdr/Akfk5A2kaeW+jE7OhikMnNUyvi5Ph+ORW XrE=
;; Received 441 bytes from 10.13.255.102#53(10.13.255.102) in 36 ms

com.172800  IN  NS  a.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS  b.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS  c.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS  d.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS  e.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS  f.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS  g.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS  h.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS  i.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS  j.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS  k.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS  l.gtld-servers.net.
com.172800  IN  NS  m.gtld-servers.net.
com.86400   IN  NSECcoop. NS RRSIG NSEC
com.86400   IN  RRSIG   NSEC 8 1 86400 2011021100 
2011020323
21639 . gR5+PdxFQpmd+bLdUdWH0qmumxkOOwW5PI0Yb0/XwxBGo5NC3UesAUWl
PHp5X+6vlhqeJhzZnJRC2XHKFl3LbSnxgvXX3eiGQ8opoSCuF2IqKX3h
hGXHqmKvV/bsXJY5FvjfrDMWQYSTS4tt9lURSlBAuJd1jWi+uXtMfafF U0o=
;; Received 718 bytes from 193.0.14.129#53(k.root-servers.net) in 121 ms

yahoo.com.  172800  IN  NS  ns1.yahoo.com.
yahoo.com.  172800  IN  NS  ns5.yahoo.com.
yahoo.com.  172800  IN  NS  ns2.yahoo.com.
yahoo.com.  172800  IN  NS  ns3.yahoo.com.
yahoo.com.  172800  IN  NS  ns4.yahoo.com.
;; Received 212 bytes from 192.43.172.30#53(i.gtld-servers.net) in 38 ms

www.yahoo.com.  300 IN  CNAME   fp.wg1.b.yahoo.com.
wg1.b.yahoo.com.300 IN  NS  yf2.yahoo.com.
wg1.b.yahoo.com.300 IN  NS  yf5.yahoo.com.
wg1.b.yahoo.com.300 IN  NS  yf1.yahoo.com.
wg1.b.yahoo.com.300 IN  NS  yf8.yahoo.com.
wg1.b.yahoo.com.300 IN  NS  yf6.yahoo.com.
wg1.b.yahoo.com.300 IN  NS  yf3.yahoo.com.
wg1.b.yahoo.com.300 IN  NS  yf4.yahoo.com.
wg1.b.yahoo.com.300 IN  NS  yf7.yahoo.com.
;; Received 337 bytes from 68.142.196.63#53(ns4.yahoo.com) in 58 ms


I don't see it resolving to an A record, seems to stop after providing
a CNAME entry.

Also the server in question can easily get to microsoft.com,
google.com (I mean resolve), it's just www.yahoo.com and this am it's
actually yahoo.com as well.

[tblue@tblue-laptop ~]$ dig @ns2.sv.admission.net  yahoo.com

; <<>> DiG 9.6.2-P2-RedHat-9.6.2-5.P2.fc12 <<>> @problemserver.net yahoo.com
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 19162
;; flags: q

Re: Akadns and Bind

2011-02-04 Thread Chris Buxton
+trace does not do what you think it does. It does not query the target name 
server for each successive query. Rather, it causes the 'dig' command to 
perform recursion on its own, only using the indicated server (@server) to seed 
its root server list. +trace also stops at the CNAME, and does not restart the 
recursion process as needed to track down the final A record(s).

Perform the trace manually, using either +dnssec or at least +bufsize=4096. For 
example, one step in the process will look like this:

dig +bufsize=4096 +norec www.yahoo.com @ns1.yahoo.com

You will find that the Yahoo load balancers do not understand EDNS0. This might 
be part of the problem, although named should be able to work around this 
automatically. Check the log file (or configure logging as needed and re-run 
the query against your problem server) to see if it will tell you exactly what 
the problem is.

Chris Buxton
BlueCat Networks

On Feb 3, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Tory M Blue wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Barry Margolin  wrote:
>> In article > SNIPPED<
>> www.yahoo.com.300   IN CNAME fp.wg1.b.yahoo.com.
>> 
>> And even when they did, it didn't get involved until you followed the
>> CNAME returned for www.yahoo.com.  Your log message above indicates an
>> issue just with the yahoo.com domain, not resolution of the CNAME target.
>> 
>> --
> Thanks Barry so maybe I need some further education
> 
> 
> [tblue@mx3 ~]$ dig @problemserver.net  www.yahoo.com
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.6.2-P2-RedHat-9.6.2-5.P2.fc12 <<>> @problemserver.net 
> www.yahoo.com
> ; (1 server found)
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
> 
> So let's add the trace option (Same servers)
> 
> [tblue@mx3 ~]$ dig @problemserver.net  www.yahoo.com  +trace
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.6.2-P2-RedHat-9.6.2-5.P2.fc12 <<>> @problemserver.net
> www.yahoo.com +trace
> ; (1 server found)
> ;; global options: +cmd
> . 514246  IN  NS  f.root-servers.net.
> . 514246  IN  NS  b.root-servers.net.
> . 514246  IN  NS  e.root-servers.net.
> . 514246  IN  NS  a.root-servers.net.
> . 514246  IN  NS  l.root-servers.net.
> . 514246  IN  NS  k.root-servers.net.
> . 514246  IN  NS  i.root-servers.net.
> . 514246  IN  NS  d.root-servers.net.
> . 514246  IN  NS  c.root-servers.net.
> . 514246  IN  NS  m.root-servers.net.
> . 514246  IN  NS  j.root-servers.net.
> . 514246  IN  NS  h.root-servers.net.
> . 514246  IN  NS  g.root-servers.net.
> ;; Received 336 bytes from 10.13.255.101#53(10.13.255.101) in 1 ms
> 
> com.  172800  IN  NS  a.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  b.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  c.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  d.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  e.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  f.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  g.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  h.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  i.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  j.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  k.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  l.gtld-servers.net.
> com.  172800  IN  NS  m.gtld-servers.net.
> ;; Received 494 bytes from 199.7.83.42#53(l.root-servers.net) in 11 ms
> 
> yahoo.com.172800  IN  NS  ns1.yahoo.com.
> yahoo.com.172800  IN  NS  ns5.yahoo.com.
> yahoo.com.172800  IN  NS  ns2.yahoo.com.
> yahoo.com.172800  IN  NS  ns3.yahoo.com.
> yahoo.com.172800  IN  NS  ns4.yahoo.com.
> ;; Received 201 bytes from 192.31.80.30#53(d.gtld-servers.net) in 55 ms
> 
> www.yahoo.com.300 IN  CNAME   fp.wg1.b.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf2.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf4.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf8.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf3.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf6.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf5.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf1.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com.  300 IN  NS  yf7.yahoo.com.
> ;; Received 326 bytes from 68.180.131.16#53(ns1.yahoo.com) in 2 ms
> 
> 
> So what am I missing? No servers available and the trace shows that
> it's finding the CNAME record, but doesn't a

Re: Delegation question

2011-02-04 Thread Chris Buxton

On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:25 AM, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> Actually I just found what caused it not to work ; I have forwarders
> set ; If I comment-out the forwarders line ; then everything work as
> it should
> 
> Can't delegation works if forwarders are enabled ?

Only if either (a) the forwarders can resolve the name, or (b) you disable 
forwarding for either the authoritative zone or the delegated child zone.

What you are seeing is the expected behavior.

Keep in mind, a BIND server does two quite different jobs: authoritatively 
answering queries about local zones and recursive/caching resolution of remote 
zones. Mixing the two services in one named.conf can be confusing and can lead 
to complex interplay between their configurations. It can also cause problems 
for DNSSEC. You should strive to avoid it.

Chris Buxton
BlueCat Networks

___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: what's a valid domain name?

2011-02-04 Thread John Wobus

So 10.14.22.11 is a legal hostname, right?

We had a recent experience where our DNS administration
system allowed someone to insert in a CNAME record that
resembled this:

www.example.com. CNAME 10.14.22.11.

A fascinating thing about this is that my computer/browser could
take me to www.example.com just fine.

John Wobus
Cornell



On Jan 30, 2011, at 7:30 AM, p...@mail.nsbeta.info wrote:



From RFC 1123

   One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the
   restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a
   letter or a digit.  Host software MUST support this more  
liberal

   syntax.




p...@mail.nsbeta.info writes:


Joseph S D Yao writes:



The labels must follow the rules for ARPANET host names.  They must
start with a letter, end with a letter or digit, and have as  
interior

characters only letters, digits, and hyphen.  There are also some
restrictions on the length.  Labels must be 63 characters or less.



A label must start with a letter? oh I don't think so.
How about these domains which all have huge DNS traffic?

163.com
126.com
51.com
56.com

yes 163.com is a domain name but "163" also can be treated as a  
label for

domain "com.", is it?

Thanks.

Regards.
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: what's a valid domain name?

2011-02-04 Thread John Wobus

To add to the story, I added a rule to our DNS administration
system that we'll only allow hostnames that include
at least one alphabetic.

John

On Feb 4, 2011, at 11:26 AM, John Wobus wrote:


So 10.14.22.11 is a legal hostname, right?

We had a recent experience where our DNS administration
system allowed someone to insert in a CNAME record that
resembled this:

www.example.com. CNAME 10.14.22.11.

A fascinating thing about this is that my computer/browser could
take me to www.example.com just fine.

John Wobus
Cornell



On Jan 30, 2011, at 7:30 AM, p...@mail.nsbeta.info wrote:



From RFC 1123

  One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the
  restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a
  letter or a digit.  Host software MUST support this more
liberal
  syntax.




p...@mail.nsbeta.info writes:


Joseph S D Yao writes:



The labels must follow the rules for ARPANET host names.  They must
start with a letter, end with a letter or digit, and have as
interior
characters only letters, digits, and hyphen.  There are also some
restrictions on the length.  Labels must be 63 characters or less.



A label must start with a letter? oh I don't think so.
How about these domains which all have huge DNS traffic?

163.com
126.com
51.com
56.com

yes 163.com is a domain name but "163" also can be treated as a
label for
domain "com.", is it?

Thanks.

Regards.
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users




___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Akadns and Bind

2011-02-04 Thread Florian Weimer
* Tory M. Blue:

> [tblue@mx3 ~]$ dig @problemserver.net  www.yahoo.com  +trace

Please use "dig @problemserver.net www.yahoo.com +trace +norecurse
+dnssec", to match more closely the queires that BIND would send.

-- 
Florian Weimer
BFK edv-consulting GmbH   http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100  tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Delegation question

2011-02-04 Thread Torinthiel
Dnia 2011-02-04 23:16 Jean-Yves Avenard napisał(a):

>Hi
>
>On 4 February 2011 22:54, Eivind Olsen  wrote:
>
>> Unless I'm misunderstanding something, it should work. Here's an extract
>> from the BIND 9.7 ARM, section 6.2.16.2:
>>
>> "Forwarding occurs only on those queries for which the server is not
>> authoritative and does not have the answer in its cache."
>>
>> How exactly had you configured forwarding in your named.conf file?
>
>I use bind that comes with mac os 10.6 server (9.6.0-APPLE-P2);
>
>named.conf at the beginning includes a file options.conf.apple like so:
>options  {
>include "/etc/dns/options.conf.apple";
>};
>
>options.conf.apple contains:
>directory "/var/named";
>
>forwarders { 203.59.24.3; 203.0.178.191; 203.134.24.70; };
>
>allow-transfer { none; };
>
>in named.conf I then have:
>include "/etc/dns/privateView.conf";
>
>which contains:
>view "intranet_view" {
>
>match-clients { 127.0.0.0/8; 192.168.0.0/23; };
>
>   allow-recursion { "internal"; };
>
>zone "." {
>type hint;
>   file "named.ca";
>};
>
>zone "domain.com" {
>type master;
>   file "internal/db.domain.com";
>   check-names ignore;
>notify TRUE;
>   allow-update { key "rndc-key"; };
>// Cancel the forwarding for this authoritative domain.
>forwarders {
>};
>};
>
>On the other hand ; is the server authoritative for the sub-domain
>mel.domain.com provided I added the delegation ?
>digg shows something like:
>;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
>mel.domain.com.7200IN  NS  ad.domain.com.

This answer is not stating that it's authorative, but only that authorities 
are below.
My wild guess ont what's happening, and why disabling forwarders fix this:
without NS m.domain.com is authorative for mel.domain.com, so it answers for 
A mel.domain.com without issues.
Now, with NS, it's not authorative, as you've just set up a delegation. So, 
when it receives the question it forwards it to one of three forwarding 
servers. And they probably don't know how to access ad.domain.com (as it has 
private IP adress, and these are public - that's one part of guess), they 
end up not resolving the name.

Can verify that 203.59.24.3; 203.0.178.191; 203.134.24.70; can call 
192.168.0.3, on that address?

Also, keep in mind that normally you should not use only one NS per 
delegation, but a minimum of two. Here, for a testing environment (I guess) 
it'll work, but don't do it on production environment.

Torinthiel

___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: Delegation question

2011-02-04 Thread Balder
On 4 February 2011 12:28, Jean-Yves Avenard  wrote:
> I changed:
not sure how forwarders fixed this but looking at your zone it is
because you have reset your ORIGIN and not put a fuul stop at the end
of the ad record

domain.com. IN SOA  m.domain.com. domainmaster.domain.com. (
   2011020405 ; serial
   7200   ; refresh (2 hours)
   1800   ; retry (30 minutes)
   1209600; expire (2 weeks)
   86400  ; minimum (1 day)
   )
   NS  m.domain.com.
   MX  0 mail.domain.com.

$ORIGIN domain.com.
   A   192.168.0.2
; glue record
m   A   192.168.0.2
mel  A  192.168.0.3

;=as there is no dit at the end of ad.domain.com this will
become.  put a full stop at the end of the record and it should work
;domain.com   NS ad.domain.com.domain.com
; NS ad.domain.com

ad  A   192.168.0.3
---
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Delegation question

2011-02-04 Thread Jean-Yves Avenard
Hi

On 4 February 2011 22:54, Eivind Olsen  wrote:

> Unless I'm misunderstanding something, it should work. Here's an extract
> from the BIND 9.7 ARM, section 6.2.16.2:
>
> "Forwarding occurs only on those queries for which the server is not
> authoritative and does not have the answer in its cache."
>
> How exactly had you configured forwarding in your named.conf file?

I use bind that comes with mac os 10.6 server (9.6.0-APPLE-P2);

named.conf at the beginning includes a file options.conf.apple like so:
options  {
include "/etc/dns/options.conf.apple";
};

options.conf.apple contains:
directory "/var/named";

forwarders { 203.59.24.3; 203.0.178.191; 203.134.24.70; };

allow-transfer { none; };

in named.conf I then have:
include "/etc/dns/privateView.conf";

which contains:
view "intranet_view" {

match-clients { 127.0.0.0/8; 192.168.0.0/23; };

allow-recursion { "internal"; };

zone "." {
type hint;
file "named.ca";
};

zone "domain.com" {
type master;
file "internal/db.domain.com";
check-names ignore;
notify TRUE;
allow-update { key "rndc-key"; };
// Cancel the forwarding for this authoritative domain.
forwarders {
};
};

On the other hand ; is the server authoritative for the sub-domain
mel.domain.com provided I added the delegation ?
digg shows something like:
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
mel.domain.com. 7200IN  NS  ad.domain.com.
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Delegation question

2011-02-04 Thread Eivind Olsen
> mel  A  192.168.0.3
> ; NS ad.domain.com

You are already defining an A record for "mel". I'd try commenting that
one out when you put the NS line back in (and make sure to give that NS
line a name of its own then, since it can then no longer piggyback off the
previous line you've just commented out). You didn't mention whether you
already were commenting out the A record or not.

Check your logs to see if BIND complains about anything. Also try pushing
your zonefile through named-checkzone.

Regards
Eivind Olsen


___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Delegation question

2011-02-04 Thread Jean-Yves Avenard
On 4 February 2011 22:51, Balder  wrote:
> not sure how forwarders fixed this but looking at your zone it is
> because you have reset your ORIGIN and not put a fuul stop at the end
> of the ad record
> ;=as there is no dit at the end of ad.domain.com this will
> become.  put a full stop at the end of the record and it should work
> ;domain.com       NS ad.domain.com.domain.com
> ;                         NS ad.domain.com

My bad...

I improperly copied it; it should have read:
NS ad.domain.com.

and that's how i had it set up here.

If I do not have the forwarders disabled for that particular zone ; it
fails ... it's puzzling
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Delegation question

2011-02-04 Thread Eivind Olsen
> Actually I just found what caused it not to work ; I have forwarders
> set ; If I comment-out the forwarders line ; then everything work as
> it should
> Can't delegation works if forwarders are enabled ?

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, it should work. Here's an extract
from the BIND 9.7 ARM, section 6.2.16.2:

"Forwarding occurs only on those queries for which the server is not
authoritative and does not have the answer in its cache."

How exactly had you configured forwarding in your named.conf file?

Regards
Eivind Olsen


___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Delegation question

2011-02-04 Thread Balder
Just re read that message and it didn't make too much sense so will try again

as there is no full stop at the end of the following line
; NS ad.domain.com
it would end up looking like this
;domain.com   NS ad.domain.com.domain.com
if you put a full stop at the end of this line see below it should work
 NS ad.domain.com.
ad  A   192.168.0.3
you could also do this
 NS ad
ad  A   192.168.0.3
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Akadns and Bind

2011-02-04 Thread Kalman Feher



On 4/02/11 3:07 AM, "Tory M Blue"  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Barry Margolin  wrote:
>> In article > SNIPPED<
>> www.yahoo.com.    300   IN CNAME fp.wg1.b.yahoo.com.
>> 
>> And even when they did, it didn't get involved until you followed the
>> CNAME returned for www.yahoo.com.  Your log message above indicates an
>> issue just with the yahoo.com domain, not resolution of the CNAME target.
>> 
>> --
> Thanks Barry so maybe I need some further education
> 
> 
> [tblue@mx3 ~]$ dig @problemserver.net  www.yahoo.com
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.6.2-P2-RedHat-9.6.2-5.P2.fc12 <<>> @problemserver.net
> www.yahoo.com
> ; (1 server found)
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
> 
What does the log entry say for the above query? Do you reach the
problemserver from your client?
> So let's add the trace option (Same servers)
> 
> [tblue@mx3 ~]$ dig @problemserver.net  www.yahoo.com  +trace
IIRC +trace will ignore @ and look queries up directly to
the root on down. So you may have been mislead with the test below.
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.6.2-P2-RedHat-9.6.2-5.P2.fc12 <<>> @problemserver.net
> www.yahoo.com +trace
> ; (1 server found)
> ;; global options: +cmd
> .   514246 IN NS f.root-servers.net.
> .   514246 IN NS b.root-servers.net.
> .   514246 IN NS e.root-servers.net.
> .   514246 IN NS a.root-servers.net.
> .   514246 IN NS l.root-servers.net.
> .   514246 IN NS k.root-servers.net.
> .   514246 IN NS i.root-servers.net.
> .   514246 IN NS d.root-servers.net.
> .   514246 IN NS c.root-servers.net.
> .   514246 IN NS m.root-servers.net.
> .   514246 IN NS j.root-servers.net.
> .   514246 IN NS h.root-servers.net.
> .   514246 IN NS g.root-servers.net.
> ;; Received 336 bytes from 10.13.255.101#53(10.13.255.101) in 1 ms
> 
> com.   172800 IN NS a.gtld-servers.net.
> com.   172800 IN NS b.gtld-servers.net.
> com.   172800 IN NS c.gtld-servers.net.
> com.   172800 IN NS d.gtld-servers.net.
> com.   172800 IN NS e.gtld-servers.net.
> com.   172800 IN NS f.gtld-servers.net.
> com.   172800 IN NS g.gtld-servers.net.
> com.   172800 IN NS h.gtld-servers.net.
> com.   172800 IN NS i.gtld-servers.net.
> com.   172800 IN NS j.gtld-servers.net.
> com.   172800 IN NS k.gtld-servers.net.
> com.   172800 IN NS l.gtld-servers.net.
> com.   172800 IN NS m.gtld-servers.net.
> ;; Received 494 bytes from 199.7.83.42#53(l.root-servers.net) in 11 ms
> 
> yahoo.com.  172800 IN NS ns1.yahoo.com.
> yahoo.com.  172800 IN NS ns5.yahoo.com.
> yahoo.com.  172800 IN NS ns2.yahoo.com.
> yahoo.com.  172800 IN NS ns3.yahoo.com.
> yahoo.com.  172800 IN NS ns4.yahoo.com.
> ;; Received 201 bytes from 192.31.80.30#53(d.gtld-servers.net) in 55 ms
> 
> www.yahoo.com.  300 IN CNAME fp.wg1.b.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN NS yf2.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN NS yf4.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN NS yf8.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN NS yf3.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN NS yf6.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN NS yf5.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN NS yf1.yahoo.com.
> wg1.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN NS yf7.yahoo.com.
> ;; Received 326 bytes from 68.180.131.16#53(ns1.yahoo.com) in 2 ms
> 
> 
> So what am I missing? No servers available and the trace shows that
> it's finding the CNAME record, but doesn't appear to be going far
> enough,
> 
> 
> Here is the second server who can resolve this. Identical
> configuration as the problem server, same network segment, behind same
> SNAT, the same..
> 
> [tblue@mx3 ~]$ dig @functioningserver.net  www.yahoo.com
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.6.2-P2-RedHat-9.6.2-5.P2.fc12 <<>> @functioningserver.net
> www.yahoo.com
> ; (1 server found)
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 30158
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 0
> 
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;www.yahoo.com.   IN A
> 
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> www.yahoo.com.  300 IN CNAME fp.wg1.b.yahoo.com.
> fp.wg1.b.yahoo.com. 3238 IN CNAME any-fp.wa1.b.yahoo.com.
> any-fp.wa1.b.yahoo.com. 60 IN A 98.137.149.56
> any-fp.wa1.b.yahoo.com. 60 IN A 72.30.2.43
> 
> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> wa1.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN NS yf2.yahoo.com.
> wa1.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN NS yf1.yahoo.com.
> 
> ;; Query time: 1759 msec
> ;; SERVER: 10.13.255.102#53(10.13.255.102)
> ;; WHEN: Thu Feb  3 18:03:55 2011
> ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 147
That's a small message size so the EDNS entry in your earlier email may be a
red herring, but just to be sure why not try the following on the server
that fails the lookup?
dig +tcp www.yahoo.com @yf2.yahoo.com.

I'd also recommend a sanity check on your loadbalancing set up. Are both
active in the pool? Have you set up NAT out bound as well as in bound on the
VIP? Remembering that UDP can be handled differently through load balancers
than TCP.
> 
> I'm missing something I'm sure, but it's under my skin now!
> 
> Thanks again
> Tory
> ___
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.o

Re: Delegation question

2011-02-04 Thread Jean-Yves Avenard
I changed:

zone "domain.com" {
type master;
file "internal/db.domain.com";
check-names ignore;
notify TRUE;
allow-update { key "rndc-key"; };
};

to:
zone "domain.com" {
type master;
file "internal/db.domain.com";
check-names ignore;
notify TRUE;
allow-update { key "rndc-key"; };
// Cancel the forwarding for this authoritative domain.
forwarders {
};
};

and it's working !
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Delegation question

2011-02-04 Thread Jean-Yves Avenard
Hi

On 4 February 2011 22:15, Stephane Bortzmeyer  wrote:
> General rule with Unix daemons: always read the log. You'll find the
> error message.
>
> BIND-specific rule: test your zone with named-checkzone.

no errors of any kind are reported, in the log nor by named-checkzone

>
> Here, I suggest you will get a "Out of zone data" error (once there is
> a delegation, the A record for the same name is probably a mistake).
>
hum...
named-checkzone domain.com /etc/namedb/sp/db.domain.com
zone domain.com/IN: loaded serial 2011020401
OK


Actually I just found what caused it not to work ; I have forwarders
set ; If I comment-out the forwarders line ; then everything work as
it should

Can't delegation works if forwarders are enabled ?

Thanks
Jean-Yves
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: Delegation question

2011-02-04 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 09:55:07PM +1100,
 Jean-Yves Avenard  wrote 
 a message of 112 lines which said:

> Now if I uncomment the NS ad.domain.com. mel.domain.com will not
> resolve anymore:

General rule with Unix daemons: always read the log. You'll find the
error message.

BIND-specific rule: test your zone with named-checkzone.

Here, I suggest you will get a "Out of zone data" error (once there is
a delegation, the A record for the same name is probably a mistake).
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Delegation question

2011-02-04 Thread Jean-Yves Avenard
Hi there..

I'm trying to create a delegation to a sub-domain ; for some reasons
I'm getting no-where

I have a domain.com zone ; I'd like to delegate mel.domain.com to
another dns server (windows server DNS fwiw)
Here is my zone file:
$ORIGIN .
$TTL 7200   ; 2 hours
domain.com. IN SOA  m.domain.com. domainmaster.domain.com. (
2011020405 ; serial
7200   ; refresh (2 hours)
1800   ; retry (30 minutes)
1209600; expire (2 weeks)
86400  ; minimum (1 day)
)
NS  m.domain.com.
MX  0 mail.domain.com.

$ORIGIN domain.com.
A   192.168.0.2
; glue record
m   A   192.168.0.2
mel  A  192.168.0.3
; NS ad.domain.com
ad  A   192.168.0.3
---


when NS ad.domain.com line is commented out ; querying for
mel.domain.com is properly resolved:

bash-3.2# dig @192.168.0.2  mel.domain.com

; <<>> DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 <<>> @192.168.0.2 mel.domain.com
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2718
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;mel.domain.com.IN  A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
mel.domain.com. 7200IN  A   192.168.0.3

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
domain.com. 7200IN  NS  m.domain.com.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
m.domain.com.   7200IN  A   192.168.0.2

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.0.2#53(192.168.0.2)
;; WHEN: Fri Feb  4 21:45:55 2011
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 80

Now if I uncomment the NS ad.domain.com. mel.domain.com will not
resolve anymore:

bash-3.2# dig @192.168.0.2  mel.domain.com

; <<>> DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 <<>> @192.168.0.2 mel.domain.com
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 5170
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;mel.domain.com.IN  A

;; Query time: 30 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.0.2#53(192.168.0.2)
;; WHEN: Fri Feb  4 21:48:54 2011
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 32

For what it's worth; ad.domain.com (the other dns server) properly
answer the query:
bash-3.2# dig @192.168.0.3  mel.domain.com

; <<>> DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 <<>> @192.168.0.3 mel.domain.com
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 36709
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;mel.domain.com.IN  A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
mel.domain.com. 600 IN  A   192.168.0.3

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.0.3#53(192.168.0.3)
;; WHEN: Fri Feb  4 21:49:42 2011
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 48

Could someone explained to me what I'm doing wrong ?
I've read every documents I could find on this topic ; and they are
all doing a similar thing ...

Why can't I define NS for my mel.domain.com ?

Thank you
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users