Strange slave DNS errors

[Kirk Hoganson]

I found some reference to similar problems in the archives.  However the 
suggested solution of upgrading has not fixed the problem.  I am now 
running 9.3.1, and the problem persists exactly as before.  My logs are 
filling up with these errors:

Aug 19 11:01:41 ns2.domain.com named[162]: socket.c:1115: unexpected error:
Aug 19 11:01:41 ns2.domain.com named[162]: internal_send: 66.7.6.158#53: 
Invalid argument
Aug 19 11:17:26 ns2.domain.com named[162]: socket.c:1115: unexpected error:
Aug 19 11:17:27 ns2.domain.com named[162]: internal_send: 66.7.6.158#53: 
Invalid argument

Stefan Puiu said the following:
> Search the list archives (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=3Dbind-users)
> for "bind 9.2,1 internal_send", you'd be surprised to see how many
> times this has been mentioned before. There are a few solutions
> provided (patch, upgrade), you just have to see which suits your
> needs.
> 
> On 8/2/05, Kirk Hoganson <kirk2 at lenderlab.com> wrote:
> 
>>I am having a rather strange issue with one of my DNS slave servers.  We
>>have 3 DNS servers:
>>Master: BIND 9.2.1 (Debian)
>>Slave1: BIND 9.2.1 (Debian)
>>Slave2: BIND 9.2.2-P1 (Gentoo)
>>=20
>>The first slave fills the logs with the following error:
>>Aug  2 00:23:36 ns2.domain.com named[1972]: socket.c:1100: unexpected err=
> 
> or:
> 
>>Aug  2 00:23:36 ns2.domain.com named[1972]: internal_send:
>>66.7.6.158#53: Invalid argument
>>Aug  2 00:23:44 ns2.domain.com named[1972]: socket.c:1100: unexpected err=
> 
> or:
> 
>>Aug  2 00:23:44 ns2.domain.com named[1972]: internal_send:
>>66.7.6.158#53: Invalid argument
>>=20
>>(That is not the actual IP, though the actual IP is valid).
>>=20
>>I have can find no reference to this error when using a valid IP.
>>Further, the service will hang when I attempt to shut it down, and I
>>must kill the processes to close it.
>>=20
>>The server will respond to outside DNS requests (ie. dig), but any local
>>requests fail.
>>=20
>>The other two systems do not have this problem, and seem to function
>>correctly.
>>=20
>>This is causing me serious grief, can anyone give me some information
>>that might get me pointed in the right direction?
>>=20
>>Kirk
>>=20
>>=20
>>
> 
> 
>