zone transfers sticking on one port?

[David Botham]

bind-users-bounce at isc.org wrote on 03/15/2004 03:22:18 PM:
> I'm seeing what I think is an odd behavior with named, and want to know 
if 
> this is in fact how things should work.
> 
> We had blocked port 39999 on our border to help deal with the Beagle 
> virus.  We found out eventually that this was causing slave transfers to 

> from our nameserver to an off-site secondary to fail with the "failure 
> trying master error...:timed out"
> 
> I actually did a sniff, and I could just see all these UDP requests 
going 
> on on 39999 and not getting answered.   Other ports were obviously going 

> through ok.
> 
> Why was named hanging up on this port?    Shouldn't it just brush this 
off 
> and try another port >1023?     This doesn't make any sense to me. chris 


No.  The brush off would happen if port 39999 was busy on your server (you 
would never see this by the way).  There is nothing in the protocol that 
says "if the remote system does not respond, change your source port".


Hope this helps.


Dave...



> 
>