What is the rule to trigger this? It is hard to debug without seeing the exact 
ruleset that’s being used.

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
[email protected]

ADHD brain at work: I sometimes lose track of my inbox. Please feel free to 
send a gentle nudge if you're waiting on a reply!

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 24. 7. 2026, at 13:04, Sachchidanand Upadhyay via bind-users 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I am observing different RPZ behavior for an IDN domain after upgrading from 
> BIND 9.20.23 to 9.20.26 and would appreciate any guidance.
> 
> Environment:
> 
> BIND 9.20.23: Works as expected
> BIND 9.20.26: Fails
> The BIND configuration and RPZ configuration are identical on both versions.
> 
> The queried domain is an IDN. The domain itself is not present in the RPZ, 
> yet BIND 9.20.26 logs an "RPZ QNAME rewrite failed" message for the query, 
> while the same query is resolved successfully on BIND 9.20.23 using the same 
> configuration. Below are the logs
> 
> 24-Jul-2026 15:37:16.288 query-errors: debug 3: client @0x7fd386c93800 
> <client_IP>#41889 
> (xn--i1bn6adp9emg4dcbcajdeflxp1gua1n7bt10abief.xn--11b7cb3a6a.xn--h2brj9c): 
> view internal: rpz QNAME rewrite 
> xn--i1bn6adp9emg4dcbcajdeflxp1gua1n7bt10abief.xn--11b7cb3a6a.xn--h2brj9c stop 
> on qresult in rpz_rewrite(): failure
> 24-Jul-2026 15:37:16.288 query-errors: info: client @0x7fd386c93800 
> <client_IP>#41889 
> (xn--i1bn6adp9emg4dcbcajdeflxp1gua1n7bt10abief.xn--11b7cb3a6a.xn--h2brj9c): 
> view internal: query failed (failure) for 
> xn--i1bn6adp9emg4dcbcajdeflxp1gua1n7bt10abief.xn--11b7cb3a6a.xn--h2brj9c/IN/A 
> at query.c:7651
> 24-Jul-2026 15:37:16.288 query-errors: debug 4: fetch completed for 
> xn--i1bn6adp9emg4dcbcajdeflxp1gua1n7bt10abief.xn--11b7cb3a6a.xn--h2brj9c/A in 
> 0.042000: failure/deadlock found 
> [domain:xn--i1bn6adp9emg4dcbcajdeflxp1gua1n7bt10abief.xn--11b7cb3a6a.xn--h2brj9c,referral:1,restart:2,qrysent:4,timeout:0,lame:0,quota:0,neterr:0,badresp:0,adberr:0,findfail:0,valfail:4]
> 
> If anyone has encountered this issue before or is aware of a workaround or 
> solution, I would be grateful for your suggestions.
> 
> Regards,
> Sachchidanand Upadhyay
> 
> 
> --
> Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
> this list.
-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list.

Reply via email to