odd output from dig
Timothy Holtzen
tah at NebrWesleyan.edu
Wed Feb 13 15:27:31 UTC 2008
I've been going around updating the root.hints files on my servers to
account for the new Ipv6 addresses and I ran into something I've never
seen before. When I run the command:
dig @127.0.0.1 +bufsize=4096 ns .
on one of the servers I get the following output:
; <<>> DiG 9.4.1 <<>> @127.0.0.1 +bufsize=4096 ns .
; (1 server found)
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10757
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 13, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 3
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;. IN NS
;; ANSWER SECTION:
. 460853 IN NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 460853 IN NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 460853 IN NS M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 460853 IN NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 460853 IN NS L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 460853 IN NS K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 460853 IN NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 460853 IN NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 460853 IN NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 460853 IN NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 460853 IN NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 460853 IN NS J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 460853 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 547253 IN A 192.58.128.30
J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 547253 IN AAAA 2001:503:c27::2:30
;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1)
;; WHEN: Wed Feb 13 08:37:15 2008
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 283
As you can see it only lists the glue records for the J root server. At
first I thought maybe responses from the root servers during the pump
phase after startup where getting truncated but I was able to determine
via wireshark that the server is receiving all the glue records from the
root servers. I then dumped the cache and was able to find all the glue
records listed in the cache. More snooping with wireshark reveals that
the server does seem to be using the records that are not getting
listed. So why won't this server list those records? I have another
server running the identical version of bind which works as I would expect.
I certainly don't claim to be a bind expert but this just seems odd.
I'm running version 9.4.1 under CentOS 5.1 on x86_64. I'd appreciate it
if someone can shed some light on what might be happening or I might be
doing wrong.
--
Timothy A. Holtzen
Campus Network Administrator
Nebraska Wesleyan University
More information about the bind-users
mailing list