RFC 6303 and bind 9.9.0
marka at isc.org
Thu Mar 1 02:31:36 UTC 2012
In message <7610864823C0D04D89342623A3ADC9DE2E339A17 at hopple.countryday.net>, "Sp
ain, Dr. Jeffry A." writes:
> I reviewed RFC 6303, which recommends configuring a number of zones using a=
> n empty zone file as follows:
> @ 10800 IN SOA @ nobody.invalid. 1 3600 1200 604800 10800
> @ 10800 IN NS @
> In bind 9.9.0 this results in errors for each zone referring to the empty z=
> one file as follows:
> Feb 29 19:24:30 ns0s named: zone 10.in-addr.arpa/IN: NS '10.in-addr.a=
> rpa' has no address records (A or AAAA)
> Feb 29 19:24:30 ns0s named: zone 10.in-addr.arpa/IN: not loaded due t=
> o errors.
> Changing the second line to '@ 10800 IN NS localhost.' eliminates the error=
> This question was raised several weeks ago (see https://lists.isc.org/piper=
> mail/bind-users/2012-January/086321.html), but no explanation was offered a=
> s to why '@ 10800 IN NS @' causes these errors. What additional thoughts do=
> es anyone have?
The built in empty zone processing is aware of the special case of
NS records without address records. The generic zone processing
rules treat this as a error condition.
> Another question with regard to RFC 6303: 255.255.255.255.in-addr.arpa is r=
> ecommended for an empty zone. RFC 1912, on the contrary, and stipulating to=
> the fact that this document is 15 years old,
> recommends 255.in-addr.arpa. =
> Going with the recommendations in RFC 6303 results in 'dig @localhost -x 22=
> 5.x.y.z' sending a query out to the Internet for any 255.x.y.x other than 2=
> 184.108.40.206. Which of these alternative empty zones should be used in th=
> e current DNS environment and why?
BCP 163 (RFC 6303) is based on BCP 153 (RFC 5735) which trumps RFC 1912.
> Thanks. Jeff.
> Jeffry A. Spain
> Network Administrator
> Cincinnati Country Day School
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
More information about the bind-users