auto-dnssec maintain and no key: no error message?

2013-07-30 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
When I run a BIND with auto-dnssec maintain and inline-signing yes, if I create no key, there is no error message and, worse, the log file says the zone is signed: Jul 30 16:31:42 u12-33673 named[1605]: zone auto.rd.nic.fr/IN (unsigned): loaded serial 2013073000 Jul 30 16:31:42 u12-33673

Re: auto-dnssec maintain and no key: no error message?

2013-07-30 Thread Jeremy C. Reed
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: Of course, there is no signature: % dig +multi @localhost SOA auto.rd.nic.fr Add +dnssec ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users

Re: auto-dnssec maintain and no key: no error message?

2013-07-30 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:50:46AM -0500, Jeremy C. Reed jr...@isc.org wrote a message of 7 lines which said: Of course, there is no signature: % dig +multi @localhost SOA auto.rd.nic.fr Add +dnssec [I thought it was in my .digrc.] It changes nothing. Without a key, BIND could not

Re: auto-dnssec maintain and no key: no error message?

2013-07-30 Thread Evan Hunt
When I run a BIND with auto-dnssec maintain and inline-signing yes, if I create no key, there is no error message and, worse, the log file says the zone is signed: Thanks for pointing this out. It's not really an error, but the log should certainly be clearer about what's going on. An

Re: BIND slave stops updating from master after 1-3 days

2013-07-30 Thread Brandon Whaley
Sorry for the bump here, but through extensive troubleshooting I've identified a trend in this. It appears that zones hosted on the lower-numbered masters are still updating without issue. This leads me to believe that something is causing BIND to forget the later cluster servers, as the logs

Re: BIND slave stops updating from master after 1-3 days

2013-07-30 Thread Steven Carr
On 30 July 2013 20:31, Brandon Whaley brand...@inmotionhosting.com wrote: Sorry for the bump here, but through extensive troubleshooting I've identified a trend in this. It appears that zones hosted on the lower-numbered masters are still updating without issue. This leads me to believe

Re: BIND slave stops updating from master after 1-3 days

2013-07-30 Thread Brandon Whaley
Hey Steve, thanks for the reply. Here's the top of one of the masters' named.conf files (they're all the same, with the exception of which zones are on them: controls { inet 127.0.0.1 allow { localhost; } keys { rndc-key; }; }; include /etc/rndc.key; logging{ channel simple_log {

Re: BIND slave stops updating from master after 1-3 days

2013-07-30 Thread Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng.
- Original Message - I think that's what you asked for. In case I misunderstood, here's a zone entry from the slave's named.conf (this immediately follows the options block in my first email: zone example.com { type slave; file /var/named/slaves/example.com.db; masters {

Re: BIND slave stops updating from master after 1-3 days

2013-07-30 Thread Brandon Whaley
Hey Lawrence, this is the zone entry as seen on the 10.10.10.1 slave. The 10.0.x.1 IPs are the addresses of the masters. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng. lkc...@ksu.eduwrote: -- I think that's what you asked for. In case I

Re: BIND slave stops updating from master after 1-3 days

2013-07-30 Thread Steven Carr
On 30 July 2013 21:38, Brandon Whaley brand...@inmotionhosting.com wrote: zone example.com { type slave; file /var/named/slaves/example.com.db; masters { 10.0.1.1; 10.0.2.1; 10.0.3.1; 10.0.4.1; 10.0.5.1; }; }; So given what I mentioned before I would envisage BIND

Re: BIND slave stops updating from master after 1-3 days

2013-07-30 Thread Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng.
Oh, guess I got it mixed up because the slave is saying it got non-authoritative answers from 10.0.x.1.. where I think of the master should at least be authoritative for its domain. - Original Message - Hey Lawrence, this is the zone entry as seen on the 10.10.10.1 slave. The

Re: BIND slave stops updating from master after 1-3 days

2013-07-30 Thread Barry Margolin
In article mailman.968.1375218342.20661.bind-us...@lists.isc.org, Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng. lkc...@ksu.edu wrote: Oh, guess I got it mixed up because the slave is saying it got non-authoritative answers from 10.0.x.1.. where I think of the master should at least be authoritative for its

Updated to bind 9.9.3-P2

2013-07-30 Thread Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng.
From 9.9.2-P2...I had build 9.9.3, but just as I was about to deploy came the announcement to either go to 9.9.3-P1 or stay with 9.9.2-P2. All the picky messages of this version.there were the no SPF/SPF records for SPF/TXTbut I thought I already had SPF everywhere...but turned out

Re: BIND slave stops updating from master after 1-3 days

2013-07-30 Thread Brandon Whaley
The logs do seem to only check the first 1-2 servers in the forwarders section when the problem is occurring. If named is restarted on this slave, it will check all the servers, as expected when it receives a notify. We have our zones distributed among 5 masters to speed updates. The software

Re: BIND slave stops updating from master after 1-3 days

2013-07-30 Thread Steven Carr
On 30 July 2013 22:52, Brandon Whaley brand...@inmotionhosting.com wrote: Once every few minutes the reload occurs on the master, which sends the notify to our slave servers, who should check serials on all the masters and transfer from the latest. I think this is your problem. From what I

Re: BIND slave stops updating from master after 1-3 days

2013-07-30 Thread Brandon Whaley
That's certainly disconcerting (and diverges from the behavior we continue to see with BIND 9.3). Is there any reason these updates would work without issue immediately after a restart but stop working at some point later? As you can see in the logs I provided in my initial post (relevant lines

Re: BIND slave stops updating from master after 1-3 days

2013-07-30 Thread Steven Carr
On 30 July 2013 23:19, Brandon Whaley brand...@inmotionhosting.com wrote: That's certainly disconcerting (and diverges from the behavior we continue to see with BIND 9.3). Is there any reason these updates would work without issue immediately after a restart but stop working at some point

Re: Updated to bind 9.9.3-P2

2013-07-30 Thread Doug Barton
On 07/30/2013 02:49 PM, Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng. wrote: From 9.9.2-P2...I had build 9.9.3, but just as I was about to deploy came the announcement to either go to 9.9.3-P1 or stay with 9.9.2-P2. All the picky messages of this version You had a lot of issues in your message. IMO they