sysquery: no addresses found for NS

Eric Chevalier Eric at vikingsoft.com
Wed Feb 6 18:03:42 UTC 2002



The problem that I presented yesterday seems to be related to forwarding 
by my private name server to the public name server.

The private name server had the following statements in its named.boot file:

    forwarders          64.173.78.130
    options             forward-only

When I commented out these statements, the "no address found" messages 
stopped.

One of the responses to my original post raised the question of whether 
the private name server had a root name server hints file; the answer is 
"yes".  It used the same hints file before and after the upgrade of the 
public name server.

Another reponse to my post suggest network, firewall or routing 
problems.  I don't believe that to be the case.  No network changes of 
any sort were made during the conversion of the Linux box from Red Hat 
6.2 to Red Hat 7.2.  Also, FWIW, at the time I was getting the "no 
address found" messages, I was able to run nslookup (sorry, dig wasn't 
available) on the same system that the private name server is running 
on.  I was able to query the public name server successfully, so there 
doesn't appear to be any problem getting DNS queries from the private to 
the public server.

My options for the public name server are:

    options {
            directory "/local/dns";
            statistics-file "/var/named/named.stats";
            auth-nxdomain yes;

            allow-transfer{
                    127.0.0.1;
                    206.13.28.11;
                    206.13.29.11;
                    64.173.78.128/25;
                    208.165.111.249;
                    };

            allow-recursion{
                    127.0.0.1;
                    64.173.78.128/25;
                    };
            };

(The private name server is part of a network that's hidden behind a 
firewall/VPN appliance.  NAT is used to masquerade all of the private 
hosts behind the IP address 64.173.78.254.)

 From where I sit, it seems like Bind 9 may handle being the target of a 
forwarder somewhat differently than Bind 8.

Eric Chevalier




More information about the bind-users mailing list