Caching only nameserver fails to resolve external zones periodically

Curtis Rempel curtis at telus.net
Mon May 17 23:28:07 UTC 2004


On Tue, 18 May 2004 00:07:25 +0100, Jim Reid wrote:

>>>>>> "Curtis" == Curtis Rempel <curtis at telus.net> writes:
> 
>     Curtis> So, perhaps, the forwarder is not faulty at all but bind is?
> 
> NO! This must qualify as the silliest question posted here in quite
> some time. Your question is a bit like asking if the syntax errors in
> somebody's code are the compiler's fault. Forwarding is by definition
> faulty. BIND9, the reference DNS implementation, is rarely faulty.
> 

Please, there is no need to get angry.  I have tried to post as much
information as possible, as far as my understanding of the problem goes. 
There is no need to belittle my lack of knowledge on the subject in
comparison to yours, after all, that is why I am posting a question here
in the first place.  It would be a very quiet group if nobody asked
questions.   Your knowledge of DNS was at one point where mine is, please
remember there are many people less smart than you are, and likely many
people probably smarter than you are.  I was simply hypothesizing that
perhaps due to some bug in bind, the cache was becoming corrupted and thus
the lack of response when doing a simple 'host www.telus.net' compared to
bypassing the local bind server with 'host www.telus.net <forwarder ip>'
which did in fact give a result indicating that the forwarding IP was
responding.  Since restarting bind would cause it to function again, my
assumption was that perhaps the cache was maybe corrupted.   Is this not
logical deductive reasoning and one possible scenario a person might want
to check when troubleshooting?


> Please stop trying to blame everything but your forwarding DNS
> configuration for your troubles. I have already explained to you why you
> should get rid of this forwarding set up and why this is almost
> guaranteed to be the root cause of the problem.

I have not attempted to blame anything.  I am simply looking at all
possible angles here and attempting to eliminate possible areas along the
way to a resolution.

> 
> Oh and trim your replies. We don't need to see your tcpdump of some DNS
> traffic over and over and over again.

First I don't include enough and then it's too much.  I wish I had a
crystal ball....  :-)


More information about the bind-users mailing list