Dear lists [apologies if you receive two copies of this message],
I am in the process of implementing anycast recursive DNS service for
our campus using a combination of servers running Bind 9.8.0 and Cisco's
IP SLA feature. There are three identical Redhat servers connected to
three different rou
Hi Patrick,
This is interesting. I just realized that the problem is not exclusive
of my anycast servers. I noticed that my authoritative-only servers
were not returning the ADDITIONAL section either, so I restarted BIND,
and they started doing so.
So this does look more clearly like some kind of
While it's possible you have encountered a bug with BIND, it's generally a bad
idea to mix recursive and authoritative service in the same process. The RFCs
that define the resolution algorithms were never written with mixed service in
mind, and there are conflicts that can result in undefined,
Hi Matt:
On 05/19/11 17:08, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
While it's possible you have encountered a bug with BIND, it's
generally a bad idea to mix recursive and authoritative service in
the same process. The RFCs that define the resolution algorithms were
never written with mixed service in mind, a
> Odds are good this is a software bug in BIND.
I can absolutely confirm that this is a bug in BIND 9; we're aware of
it and have been trying to reproduce it for some time. Unfortunately
it seems to be triggered by some environmental condition we haven't
identified yet--the bug has never once tur
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
>> Odds are good this is a software bug in BIND.
>
> I can absolutely confirm that this is a bug in BIND 9; we're aware of
> it and have been trying to reproduce it for some time. Unfortunately
> it seems to be triggered by some environmental cond
Hi all,
> If you're saying that you shouldn't *offer* recursive and authoritative
> services on the same box, then I generally agree. If you're saying that you
> shouldn't ever prime your cache with a zone, or have a recursive server be a
> slave to anything, then I'd say it gets kind of hairy t
Hi all,
> If you're saying that you shouldn't *offer* recursive and authoritative
> services on the same box, then I generally agree. If you're saying that you
> shouldn't ever prime your cache with a zone, or have a recursive server be a
> slave to anything, then I'd say it gets kind of hairy t
On 2011-05-20, at 00:35, Carlos Vicente wrote:
> That's news to me. What's the failure mode? Does the server return SERVFAIL,
> or does it not set the AD flag, or...?
It's another undefined condition in the RFCs, and so the outcome is
implementation specific. I believe in the case of BIND th
In the end it was a simple bug. dbversion->queryok was not being
set to ISC_TRUE when it should have been (second change).
Initialising dbversion->queryok to ISC_FALSE made the failure
deterministic.
This will be in BIND 9.8.1 final. BIND 9.8.1b1 is already cut
and will need this to be applied.
On 2011-05-19, at 21:58, Michael Sinatra wrote:
> If you're saying that you shouldn't *offer* recursive and authoritative
> services on the same box, then I generally agree. If you're saying that you
> shouldn't ever prime your cache with a zone, or have a recursive server be a
> slave to any
> I hope to have a fix soon, before 9.8.1 ships (but after 9.8.1b1, which
> is already in the pipeline).
Followup: The bug was in fact found about an hour after I wrote that,
and will be fixed in 9.8.1.
--
Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
_
12 matches
Mail list logo
