Hi All,
We have configured a forward zone in bind9 for e164.arpa and in forwarders we
are giving 2 IPs.
Just wanted to know the mechanism/routing/ Load balancing policy by which bind9
forwarding to different IPs.
I can see sometimes it routes to same IP always, sometime it forward it in
Hi Ondrej,
Thanks for your reply,
I'm afraid I am unable to share any more detail regarding the zone content
because it's customer data. I will use example.com and try to make the most
sense out of the issue.
Our upgrading procedure is to recompile the binaries provided in
Sonal,
How do you expect anyone to help you when you ask such a vague question?
If you want help, the least you can do is ask a question properly. It
only takes 2 more minutes to describe a situation more accurately, so
please stop taking shortcuts, and try again, with a more detailed
Don't know if that helps, but if I query my local Bind DNS for a CNAME,
that doesn't exists, dig gives me the SOA record:
> dig cname nonexisting.example.com @mydns
; <<>> DiG 9.16.6 <<>> cname nonexisting.example.com @mydns
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY,
Hello,
I am currently rolling the 9.16.21 on a few bind servers. Most of the
servers rolled the update correctly except for one in particular (this is a
primary server of 2 other secondaries).
Here is the issue logged
Sep 23 10:42:07 host named[22788]: zoneload: zone [...]/IN: loading from
Hi,
we cannot really help you if anonymize everything and don’t provide any details
at all.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc.org
> On 23. 9. 2021, at 10:54, Thib D wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am currently rolling the 9.16.21 on a few bind servers. Most of the servers
> rolled the
Can some one please help me on this
From: Sonal Pahuja
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 10:26:48 AM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: CNAME query
Hi All,
We are sending a CNAME query but currently we don’t have any CNAME record, just
have NS info.
Thanks a lot Danilo for understanding my query! This is what i was looking for!
From: bind-users on behalf of Danilo Godec
via bind-users
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 17:27
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: [External] : Re: CNAME query
Don't know if
+1
you set two forwarders ( possibly the same machine )
On 23/09/2021 7:47 pm, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
Sonal,
How do you expect anyone to help you when you ask such a vague
question? If you want help, the least you can do is ask a question
properly. It only takes 2 more minutes to describe
Hi Thib,
thanks, this is much better and I can now safely say, this has been already
reported and tracked as https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/issues/2911
The only thing weird is:
> Then, I tried switching from
> check-names master warn;
> to
> check-names primary warn;
This should
On 23.09.21 06:18, Sonal Pahuja wrote:
We have configured a forward zone in bind9 for e164.arpa and in forwarders we
are giving 2 IPs.
Just wanted to know the mechanism/routing/ Load balancing policy by which bind9
forwarding to different IPs.
I can see sometimes it routes to same IP
> Don't know if that helps, but if I query my local Bind DNS for a CNAME,
> that doesn't exists, dig gives me the SOA record:
>
>> dig cname nonexisting.example.com @mydns
>
> ; <<>> DiG 9.16.6 <<>> cname nonexisting.example.com @mydns
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<-
Parkin, Richard (R.) wrote:
>
> I’d like to understand how much traffic is flowing to each forwarder
> (QPS, etc) and monitor that for any issues. Is there a way to do that
> effectively in Bind without putting some kind of network device on the
> outbound path to measure it? If not, does
Sonal Pahuja wrote:
>
> We are sending a CNAME query but currently we don't have any CNAME
> record, just have NS info. What should be the Bind9 response for this
> CNAME query? Will it return NS Record in Authority/Answer section?
In general, applications should not make CNAME queries because
> This should be the right workaround at this moment, so I wonder why it
didn’t work.
It seems like it does after all, I messed up my checks. Thanks.
However our procedure runs named-checkconf before restarting named, and no
error is brought up when running it, I'm guessing this should be
Hi,
I am using bind 9.16.21 on ubuntu. When I am running dnsperf against that,
always load is going one CPU core, because of this issue, I am seeing less
QPS. Has anyone faced the same issue? Could you please someone look into
this and help me with this?
Regards,
Ramesh
Hi,
I am using bind 9.16.21 on ubuntu. When I am running dnsperf against that,
always load is going one CPU core, because of this issue, I am seeing less
QPS. Has anyone faced the same issue? Could you please someone look into
this and help me with this?
Regards,
Ramesh
17 matches
Mail list logo
