Re: DNS views and zone transfers
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:49 PM, project722 wrote:
> Bob, I have few questions regarding your sample config. First off it is
> slightly different than mine, which does work BTW at least in a lab
> environment. In your internal view what is the purpose of having this line:
>
> // this list must not match 127.0.0.1
> !key "external"; // use this key to test the external
> view
> 10.0.0.0/8;
>
> Why use 127.0.0.1 and what is the 10.0.0.0/8 block for? I also noticed
> you did not include the external key indie the external view. Why is that?
>
The "internal" and "external" keys are so that I can test both views from
anywhere with:
dig something -k key.internal
dig something -k key.external
The keys are also used if you need to do notify's or zone transfers and get
them to the right view.
127.0.0.1 is used to talk from one view to the other, so it needs to match
the external view in this case
10.0.0.0/8 are the "internal" addresses in this example.
The external view could have included the external key, but 'any' covers
that. If your match is not "any', then you would want to include the
external key and 127.0.0.1.
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:37 AM, project722 wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Bob, I will look into this. Do you know if the forwarders feature
>>> is supported in Bind 9.8.2?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, forwarders is an old and stable feature.
>>
>> ("in-view" is new and experimental)
>>
>> --
>> Bob Harold
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:23 PM, project722
wrote:
> I'm interested in the "view forwarding" method. I'm only setting up
> views to resolve a split DNS issue with one domain. I'd like to have that
> one zone/domain in my internal view and then if the source IP requests
> info
> for any other zone forward that to my external view. To me this sounds
> like
> a whole lot less work. Do you have any specifics on how I would go about
> setting that up or can you point me in the direction where I can get info
> on setting that up? Ideally, I'd want my "internal" clients to still find
> example.com even if the internal view only had example.org in it.
> Something like this but how do I incorporate the forwarding?
>
> view internal {
>
>match clients - internal;
>
> zone - example.org
>
> };
>
> view external {
>
> match clients - external {
>
> zone example.org {
> };
>
> zone example.com {
> };
>
> };
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Bob Harold
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:56 PM, project722
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have successfully setup TSIG keys for "views" using a DNS
>>> master/server pair. Zone transfers are working as expected between the 2
>>> servers for each view. Before we go live into production with this I
>>> need
>>> some clarification on a couple things. Our prod servers are also
>>> allowing
>>> zone transfers to a few other servers besides the slave server. We have
>>> an
>>> acl setup that looks similar to this:
>>>
>>> other_xfer_allowed_ns {
>>> x.x.x.x; // This is our Secondary DNS server
>>> 127.0.0.1; // localhost can make zone transfers
>>> x.x.x.x/24; // Server Farm Range is allowed to make zone-transfers
>>> x.x.x.x/24; // NAT pool for internal DNS server Zone Transfers
>>> x.x.x.x/24; // NAT pool for internal DNS server Zone Transfers
>>> x.x.x.x/24; // NAT pool for internal DNS server Zone Transfers
>>> }; // end of "other_xfer_allowed" ACL
>>>
>>> And in the "allow transfer" statement we have included that ACL. My
>>> question is:
>>>
>>> Now that we are using TSIG, will I need to get with the admins of
>>> all these other servers and provide them my TSIG key so they can request
>>> zone transfers? I would think somehting like that needs to be done
>>> since it
>>> was required to be configured on slave server, but I am not sure.
>>>
>>
>> No, if you allowed the IP range in your ACL, they don't need the TSIG
>> key.
>> It might be more secure to hand out TSIG keys and remove the IP
>> ranges from the ACL, so only the TSIG key will allow transfers, since IP
>> addresses are easier to spoof, but since a zone transfer requires TCP,
>> spoofing is not likely.
>>
>> The TSIG key was required on the slave in order to get the right
>> view, if I remember correctly.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Next,
>>>
>>> I setup views so that clients on the "internal" network when
>>> requesting a record would be presented with different records than
>>> clients
>>> on the outside. And at the moment there is only one zone that is
>>> required
>>> to h
Re: DNS views and zone transfers
Bob, I have few questions regarding your sample config. First off it is
slightly different than mine, which does work BTW at least in a lab
environment. In your internal view what is the purpose of having this line:
// this list must not match 127.0.0.1
!key "external"; // use this key to test the external view
10.0.0.0/8;
Why use 127.0.0.1 and what is the 10.0.0.0/8 block for? I also noticed you
did not include the external key indie the external view. Why is that?
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:37 AM, project722 wrote:
>
>> Thanks Bob, I will look into this. Do you know if the forwarders feature
>> is supported in Bind 9.8.2?
>>
>>
> Yes, forwarders is an old and stable feature.
>
> ("in-view" is new and experimental)
>
> --
> Bob Harold
>
>
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:23 PM, project722 wrote:
>>>
I'm interested in the "view forwarding" method. I'm only setting up
views to resolve a split DNS issue with one domain. I'd like to have that
one zone/domain in my internal view and then if the source IP requests info
for any other zone forward that to my external view. To me this sounds like
a whole lot less work. Do you have any specifics on how I would go about
setting that up or can you point me in the direction where I can get info
on setting that up? Ideally, I'd want my "internal" clients to still find
example.com even if the internal view only had example.org in it.
Something like this but how do I incorporate the forwarding?
view internal {
match clients - internal;
zone - example.org
};
view external {
match clients - external {
zone example.org {
};
zone example.com {
};
};
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Bob Harold wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:56 PM, project722
> wrote:
>
>> I have successfully setup TSIG keys for "views" using a DNS
>> master/server pair. Zone transfers are working as expected between the 2
>> servers for each view. Before we go live into production with this I need
>> some clarification on a couple things. Our prod servers are also allowing
>> zone transfers to a few other servers besides the slave server. We have
>> an
>> acl setup that looks similar to this:
>>
>> other_xfer_allowed_ns {
>> x.x.x.x; // This is our Secondary DNS server
>> 127.0.0.1; // localhost can make zone transfers
>> x.x.x.x/24; // Server Farm Range is allowed to make zone-transfers
>> x.x.x.x/24; // NAT pool for internal DNS server Zone Transfers
>> x.x.x.x/24; // NAT pool for internal DNS server Zone Transfers
>> x.x.x.x/24; // NAT pool for internal DNS server Zone Transfers
>> }; // end of "other_xfer_allowed" ACL
>>
>> And in the "allow transfer" statement we have included that ACL. My
>> question is:
>>
>> Now that we are using TSIG, will I need to get with the admins of all
>> these other servers and provide them my TSIG key so they can request zone
>> transfers? I would think somehting like that needs to be done since it
>> was
>> required to be configured on slave server, but I am not sure.
>>
>
> No, if you allowed the IP range in your ACL, they don't need the TSIG
> key.
> It might be more secure to hand out TSIG keys and remove the IP ranges
> from the ACL, so only the TSIG key will allow transfers, since IP
> addresses
> are easier to spoof, but since a zone transfer requires TCP, spoofing is
> not likely.
>
> The TSIG key was required on the slave in order to get the right view,
> if I remember correctly.
>
>
>>
>> Next,
>>
>> I setup views so that clients on the "internal" network when
>> requesting a record would be presented with different records than
>> clients
>> on the outside. And at the moment there is only one zone that is required
>> to have different records. However, It is my understanding that since
>> views
>> are based off source IP's, if I was to ONLY include that one zone in my
>> "internal" view, if a record was requested for another zone from that
>> same
>> IP, they would probably get an nxdomain answer since that IP is limited
>> to
>> that one view.
>>
>> So, my question is, will I need to include all zones in both views so
>> that all clients can get results, even though I would only have (at the
>> moment) one zone that points to two different zone files? All others in
>> both views would point to the same zone file, unless of course there is
>> another zone we need to present a different view to for internal clients.
>>
>
> You have a few choices:
> - Copi
Re: DNS views and zone transfers
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:34 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:48:54AM -0400, Bob Harold wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:37 AM, project722
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Bob, I will look into this. Do you know if the forwarders
> > > feature is supported in Bind 9.8.2?
> > >
> > Yes, forwarders is an old and stable feature.
> >
> > ("in-view" is new and experimental)
>
> "New" is fair to say, if you call BIND 9.10 "new". OTOH it is
> unfair/wrong to call it "experimental". 9.10 has been in stable
> release form for quite some time now, and there have been no problems
> with the in-view zone feature, AFAIK.
My apologies. You are correct, it is just not fossilized enough to be the
default in most Linux distros.
> > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:23 PM, project722
> wrote:
>
> snip
> > >> Here is the basic structure:
> > >>
> > >> view "internal" {
> > >> match-clients {
> > >> // this list must not match 127.0.0.1
> > >> !key "external"; // use this key to test the external view
> > >> 10.0.0.0/8;
> > >> key "internal"; // use this key to test the internal view
> > >> };
> > >> zone "itd.umich.edu" {// this zone is different in the two
> views
> > >> type master;
> > >> file "internal/itd.umich.edu";
> > >> };
> > >> forwarders {
> > >> // forward to external view
> > >> 127.0.0.1;
>
> I have never thought to try this, but I would not expect it to work.
> Does it?
It works, and avoids having extra copies of the zones on disk and in memory
(I don't have 9.10). Downsides are the caching in both views, and query
logging (if enabled) logs it twice.
> >> };
> > >> forward only;// optional
> > >> };
> > >> view "external" {
> > >> match-clients {
> > >> // this list must match 127.0.0.1
> > >> any;
> > >> };
> > >> zone "itd.umich.edu" {// this zone is different in the two
> views
> > >> type master;
> > >> file "external/itd.umich.edu";
> > >> };
> > >> zone "10.in-addr.arpa" { // all other zones will be seen by
> everyone
> > >> type master;
> > >> file "external/arpa.in-addr.10";
> > >> };
> > >> zone "umich.edu" {
> > >> type master;
> > >> file "external/com.umich";
> > >> };
> > >> };
>
> --
> http://rob0.nodns4.us/
> Offlist GMX mail is seen only if "/dev/rob0" is in the Subject:
>
>
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: DNS views and zone transfers
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:48:54AM -0400, Bob Harold wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:37 AM, project722 wrote:
>
> > Thanks Bob, I will look into this. Do you know if the forwarders
> > feature is supported in Bind 9.8.2?
> >
> Yes, forwarders is an old and stable feature.
>
> ("in-view" is new and experimental)
"New" is fair to say, if you call BIND 9.10 "new". OTOH it is
unfair/wrong to call it "experimental". 9.10 has been in stable
release form for quite some time now, and there have been no problems
with the in-view zone feature, AFAIK.
> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:23 PM, project722 wrote:
snip
> >> Here is the basic structure:
> >>
> >> view "internal" {
> >> match-clients {
> >> // this list must not match 127.0.0.1
> >> !key "external"; // use this key to test the external view
> >> 10.0.0.0/8;
> >> key "internal"; // use this key to test the internal view
> >> };
> >> zone "itd.umich.edu" {// this zone is different in the two views
> >> type master;
> >> file "internal/itd.umich.edu";
> >> };
> >> forwarders {
> >> // forward to external view
> >> 127.0.0.1;
I have never thought to try this, but I would not expect it to work.
Does it?
> >> };
> >> forward only;// optional
> >> };
> >> view "external" {
> >> match-clients {
> >> // this list must match 127.0.0.1
> >> any;
> >> };
> >> zone "itd.umich.edu" {// this zone is different in the two views
> >> type master;
> >> file "external/itd.umich.edu";
> >> };
> >> zone "10.in-addr.arpa" { // all other zones will be seen by everyone
> >> type master;
> >> file "external/arpa.in-addr.10";
> >> };
> >> zone "umich.edu" {
> >> type master;
> >> file "external/com.umich";
> >> };
> >> };
--
http://rob0.nodns4.us/
Offlist GMX mail is seen only if "/dev/rob0" is in the Subject:
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: DNS views and zone transfers
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:37 AM, project722 wrote:
> Thanks Bob, I will look into this. Do you know if the forwarders feature
> is supported in Bind 9.8.2?
>
>
Yes, forwarders is an old and stable feature.
("in-view" is new and experimental)
--
Bob Harold
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:23 PM, project722 wrote:
>>
>>> I'm interested in the "view forwarding" method. I'm only setting up
>>> views to resolve a split DNS issue with one domain. I'd like to have that
>>> one zone/domain in my internal view and then if the source IP requests info
>>> for any other zone forward that to my external view. To me this sounds like
>>> a whole lot less work. Do you have any specifics on how I would go about
>>> setting that up or can you point me in the direction where I can get info
>>> on setting that up? Ideally, I'd want my "internal" clients to still find
>>> example.com even if the internal view only had example.org in it.
>>> Something like this but how do I incorporate the forwarding?
>>>
>>> view internal {
>>>
>>>match clients - internal;
>>>
>>> zone - example.org
>>>
>>> };
>>>
>>> view external {
>>>
>>> match clients - external {
>>>
>>> zone example.org {
>>> };
>>>
>>> zone example.com {
>>> };
>>>
>>> };
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Bob Harold wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:56 PM, project722
wrote:
> I have successfully setup TSIG keys for "views" using a DNS
> master/server pair. Zone transfers are working as expected between the 2
> servers for each view. Before we go live into production with this I need
> some clarification on a couple things. Our prod servers are also allowing
> zone transfers to a few other servers besides the slave server. We have an
> acl setup that looks similar to this:
>
> other_xfer_allowed_ns {
> x.x.x.x; // This is our Secondary DNS server
> 127.0.0.1; // localhost can make zone transfers
> x.x.x.x/24; // Server Farm Range is allowed to make zone-transfers
> x.x.x.x/24; // NAT pool for internal DNS server Zone Transfers
> x.x.x.x/24; // NAT pool for internal DNS server Zone Transfers
> x.x.x.x/24; // NAT pool for internal DNS server Zone Transfers
> }; // end of "other_xfer_allowed" ACL
>
> And in the "allow transfer" statement we have included that ACL. My
> question is:
>
> Now that we are using TSIG, will I need to get with the admins of all
> these other servers and provide them my TSIG key so they can request zone
> transfers? I would think somehting like that needs to be done since it was
> required to be configured on slave server, but I am not sure.
>
No, if you allowed the IP range in your ACL, they don't need the TSIG
key.
It might be more secure to hand out TSIG keys and remove the IP ranges
from the ACL, so only the TSIG key will allow transfers, since IP addresses
are easier to spoof, but since a zone transfer requires TCP, spoofing is
not likely.
The TSIG key was required on the slave in order to get the right view,
if I remember correctly.
>
> Next,
>
> I setup views so that clients on the "internal" network when
> requesting a record would be presented with different records than clients
> on the outside. And at the moment there is only one zone that is required
> to have different records. However, It is my understanding that since
> views
> are based off source IP's, if I was to ONLY include that one zone in my
> "internal" view, if a record was requested for another zone from that same
> IP, they would probably get an nxdomain answer since that IP is limited to
> that one view.
>
> So, my question is, will I need to include all zones in both views so
> that all clients can get results, even though I would only have (at the
> moment) one zone that points to two different zone files? All others in
> both views would point to the same zone file, unless of course there is
> another zone we need to present a different view to for internal clients.
>
You have a few choices:
- Copies of zones in both views. More memory used, more zone
transfers, but probably safest and best performance. This is what I do.
The zones in the two views will need to be in separate files, if they are
"slave" zones, otherwise Bind will get confused and complain, because it
does not realize that two different views are trying to write the same
file.
- One view could 'forward' to the other view for zones it does not
have. (Doubles the query logging, if you have that turned on.)
- Views could do normal recursion for some zones if they can reach the
servers listed in the NS records and get the info from there.
>
> Now, last question.
>
> I have a conc
Bind and DLZ strange loop
Hello,
we use Bind with DLZ, Postgres 8.4.8 as RDBMS support.
Everything works but, with DLZ query, i notice (in Postsgresql log), that Bind
calls two times the same queries.
For example, to resolve with Bind-DLZ www.fiorino.it, it should make three
queries (to descend until Top level domain):
www.fiorino.it
fiorino.it
it
Instead of this, it repeat the queries two times:
first time <2016-09-07 17:36:56 CEST>LOG: duration: 0.965 ms statement:
select 'www.fiorino.it' where function_cloud_view_orari('53', x.x.x.x,
'www.fiorino.it') != '';
first time <2016-09-07 17:36:56 CEST>LOG: duration: 0.359 ms statement:
select 'fiorino.it' where function_cloud_view_orari('53', x.x.x.x,
'fiorino.it') != '';
first time <2016-09-07 17:36:56 CEST>LOG: duration: 0.304 ms statement:
select 'it' where function_cloud_view_orari('53', x.x.x.x, 'it') != '';
second time <2016-09-07 17:36:56 CEST>LOG: duration: 0.291 ms statement:
select 'www.fiorino.it' where function_cloud_view_orari('53', x.x.x.x,
'www.fiorino.it') != '';
second time <2016-09-07 17:36:56 CEST>LOG: duration: 0.291 ms statement:
select 'fiorino.it' where function_cloud_view_orari('53', x.x.x.x,
'fiorino.it') != '';
second time <2016-09-07 17:36:56 CEST>LOG: duration: 0.215 ms statement:
select 'it' where function_cloud_view_orari('53', x.x.x.x, 'it') != '';
Can someone help me with?
Thank you!
Francesco
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: DNS views and zone transfers
Thanks Bob, I will look into this. Do you know if the forwarders feature is
supported in Bind 9.8.2?
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:23 PM, project722 wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in the "view forwarding" method. I'm only setting up views
>> to resolve a split DNS issue with one domain. I'd like to have that one
>> zone/domain in my internal view and then if the source IP requests info for
>> any other zone forward that to my external view. To me this sounds like a
>> whole lot less work. Do you have any specifics on how I would go about
>> setting that up or can you point me in the direction where I can get info
>> on setting that up? Ideally, I'd want my "internal" clients to still find
>> example.com even if the internal view only had example.org in it.
>> Something like this but how do I incorporate the forwarding?
>>
>> view internal {
>>
>>match clients - internal;
>>
>> zone - example.org
>>
>> };
>>
>> view external {
>>
>> match clients - external {
>>
>> zone example.org {
>> };
>>
>> zone example.com {
>> };
>>
>> };
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Bob Harold wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:56 PM, project722
>>> wrote:
>>>
I have successfully setup TSIG keys for "views" using a DNS
master/server pair. Zone transfers are working as expected between the 2
servers for each view. Before we go live into production with this I need
some clarification on a couple things. Our prod servers are also allowing
zone transfers to a few other servers besides the slave server. We have an
acl setup that looks similar to this:
other_xfer_allowed_ns {
x.x.x.x; // This is our Secondary DNS server
127.0.0.1; // localhost can make zone transfers
x.x.x.x/24; // Server Farm Range is allowed to make zone-transfers
x.x.x.x/24; // NAT pool for internal DNS server Zone Transfers
x.x.x.x/24; // NAT pool for internal DNS server Zone Transfers
x.x.x.x/24; // NAT pool for internal DNS server Zone Transfers
}; // end of "other_xfer_allowed" ACL
And in the "allow transfer" statement we have included that ACL. My
question is:
Now that we are using TSIG, will I need to get with the admins of all
these other servers and provide them my TSIG key so they can request zone
transfers? I would think somehting like that needs to be done since it was
required to be configured on slave server, but I am not sure.
>>>
>>> No, if you allowed the IP range in your ACL, they don't need the TSIG
>>> key.
>>> It might be more secure to hand out TSIG keys and remove the IP ranges
>>> from the ACL, so only the TSIG key will allow transfers, since IP addresses
>>> are easier to spoof, but since a zone transfer requires TCP, spoofing is
>>> not likely.
>>>
>>> The TSIG key was required on the slave in order to get the right view,
>>> if I remember correctly.
>>>
>>>
Next,
I setup views so that clients on the "internal" network when requesting
a record would be presented with different records than clients on the
outside. And at the moment there is only one zone that is required to have
different records. However, It is my understanding that since views are
based off source IP's, if I was to ONLY include that one zone in my
"internal" view, if a record was requested for another zone from that same
IP, they would probably get an nxdomain answer since that IP is limited to
that one view.
So, my question is, will I need to include all zones in both views so
that all clients can get results, even though I would only have (at the
moment) one zone that points to two different zone files? All others in
both views would point to the same zone file, unless of course there is
another zone we need to present a different view to for internal clients.
>>>
>>> You have a few choices:
>>> - Copies of zones in both views. More memory used, more zone transfers,
>>> but probably safest and best performance. This is what I do. The zones in
>>> the two views will need to be in separate files, if they are "slave" zones,
>>> otherwise Bind will get confused and complain, because it does not realize
>>> that two different views are trying to write the same file.
>>> - One view could 'forward' to the other view for zones it does not
>>> have. (Doubles the query logging, if you have that turned on.)
>>> - Views could do normal recursion for some zones if they can reach the
>>> servers listed in the NS records and get the info from there.
>>>
>>>
Now, last question.
I have a concern about the allow-query statement. On our production
server we have an ACL list we'll call it "trusted".
We have an allow query statement in the global options to only allow
queries from IP's in the trusted ACL. However every one of our zone entries
in the conf file
Re: DNS views and zone transfers
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:23 PM, project722 wrote:
> I'm interested in the "view forwarding" method. I'm only setting up views
> to resolve a split DNS issue with one domain. I'd like to have that one
> zone/domain in my internal view and then if the source IP requests info for
> any other zone forward that to my external view. To me this sounds like a
> whole lot less work. Do you have any specifics on how I would go about
> setting that up or can you point me in the direction where I can get info
> on setting that up? Ideally, I'd want my "internal" clients to still find
> example.com even if the internal view only had example.org in it.
> Something like this but how do I incorporate the forwarding?
>
> view internal {
>
>match clients - internal;
>
> zone - example.org
>
> };
>
> view external {
>
> match clients - external {
>
> zone example.org {
> };
>
> zone example.com {
> };
>
> };
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Bob Harold wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:56 PM, project722
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have successfully setup TSIG keys for "views" using a DNS
>>> master/server pair. Zone transfers are working as expected between the 2
>>> servers for each view. Before we go live into production with this I need
>>> some clarification on a couple things. Our prod servers are also allowing
>>> zone transfers to a few other servers besides the slave server. We have an
>>> acl setup that looks similar to this:
>>>
>>> other_xfer_allowed_ns {
>>> x.x.x.x; // This is our Secondary DNS server
>>> 127.0.0.1; // localhost can make zone transfers
>>> x.x.x.x/24; // Server Farm Range is allowed to make zone-transfers
>>> x.x.x.x/24; // NAT pool for internal DNS server Zone Transfers
>>> x.x.x.x/24; // NAT pool for internal DNS server Zone Transfers
>>> x.x.x.x/24; // NAT pool for internal DNS server Zone Transfers
>>> }; // end of "other_xfer_allowed" ACL
>>>
>>> And in the "allow transfer" statement we have included that ACL. My
>>> question is:
>>>
>>> Now that we are using TSIG, will I need to get with the admins of all
>>> these other servers and provide them my TSIG key so they can request zone
>>> transfers? I would think somehting like that needs to be done since it was
>>> required to be configured on slave server, but I am not sure.
>>>
>>
>> No, if you allowed the IP range in your ACL, they don't need the TSIG key.
>> It might be more secure to hand out TSIG keys and remove the IP ranges
>> from the ACL, so only the TSIG key will allow transfers, since IP addresses
>> are easier to spoof, but since a zone transfer requires TCP, spoofing is
>> not likely.
>>
>> The TSIG key was required on the slave in order to get the right view, if
>> I remember correctly.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Next,
>>>
>>> I setup views so that clients on the "internal" network when requesting
>>> a record would be presented with different records than clients on the
>>> outside. And at the moment there is only one zone that is required to have
>>> different records. However, It is my understanding that since views are
>>> based off source IP's, if I was to ONLY include that one zone in my
>>> "internal" view, if a record was requested for another zone from that same
>>> IP, they would probably get an nxdomain answer since that IP is limited to
>>> that one view.
>>>
>>> So, my question is, will I need to include all zones in both views so
>>> that all clients can get results, even though I would only have (at the
>>> moment) one zone that points to two different zone files? All others in
>>> both views would point to the same zone file, unless of course there is
>>> another zone we need to present a different view to for internal clients.
>>>
>>
>> You have a few choices:
>> - Copies of zones in both views. More memory used, more zone transfers,
>> but probably safest and best performance. This is what I do. The zones in
>> the two views will need to be in separate files, if they are "slave" zones,
>> otherwise Bind will get confused and complain, because it does not realize
>> that two different views are trying to write the same file.
>> - One view could 'forward' to the other view for zones it does not have.
>> (Doubles the query logging, if you have that turned on.)
>> - Views could do normal recursion for some zones if they can reach the
>> servers listed in the NS records and get the info from there.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Now, last question.
>>>
>>> I have a concern about the allow-query statement. On our production
>>> server we have an ACL list we'll call it "trusted".
>>> We have an allow query statement in the global options to only allow
>>> queries from IP's in the trusted ACL. However every one of our zone entries
>>> in the conf file also has an "allow-query { any; }; statement. Doesn't that
>>> defeat the purpose of have a "trusted" ACL for queries? Is this bad design?
>>>
>>
>> Seems like the 'any' would override the 'trusted'. Probably not what you
>> wanted.
>>
>> --
>> Bob Harold
>>
>>
>
Here is th
Re: DNS views and zone transfers
On 06.09.16 16:23, project722 wrote:
I'm interested in the "view forwarding" method. I'm only setting up views
to resolve a split DNS issue with one domain. I'd like to have that one
zone/domain in my internal view and then if the source IP requests info for
any other zone forward that to my external view. To me this sounds like a
whole lot less work. Do you have any specifics on how I would go about
setting that up or can you point me in the direction where I can get info
on setting that up? Ideally, I'd want my "internal" clients to still find
example.com even if the internal view only had example.org in it. Something
like this but how do I incorporate the forwarding?
in think "in-view" statemend in BIND 9.10 is what you search for.
view internal {
match clients - internal;
zone - example.org
};
view external {
match clients - external {
zone example.org {
};
zone example.com {
};
};
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Christian Science Programming: "Let God Debug It!".
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Request reverse dns mapping advice
On 2016-09-06 08:01, Bob Harold wrote: I agree with one PTR per IP. But since you have 5 IP's, you can have one PTR record on each, just be sure there is a matching forward "A" record. Your list of 5 names looks good, but only if each service uses the corresponding IP for its outgoing connections, which could be difficult or not the most efficient. (What is missing here is why 5 IP's - parallel for more traffic, connections to different Internet providers, ...?) It sounds to me like the provider assigned a /29, and speaking as a small host, distributing the traffic to different IPs often makes life easier in the short and long term. It could be a matter of separating outbound traffic (separating email streams is wise, for example), for firewalling efficiency, they might have separate virtual machines answering each IP, HTTP optimization is a factor too in a pre-HTTP/2 world. Tons of other possible reasons, none of which are really relevant to the best practices involved with PTR record naming. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
