why the new complaints about inherited owner?

Jo Rhett jrhett at netconsonance.com
Tue Nov 25 23:46:30 UTC 2014


On Nov 25, 2014, at 3:51 AM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
> In message <1DAC056D-B368-48D0-BC6A-4349AD86FB64 at netconsonance.com>, Jo Rhett writes:
>> Googling for information on this log message I can find only the source cod=
>> e changes. Why exactly is this bad?
>> 
>> ov 25 03:07:15 geode named[4173]: domain.include:2: record with inherited o=
>> wner (netconsonance.com) immediately after $ORIGIN (netconsonance.com)
>> 
>> Zone file has the totally bog-standard SOA followed by NS records. Like eve=
>> ry record in which multiple RRs are done for the same name, the NS entries =
>> are inherited. This is not only bog-standard, but it=92s still shown in the=
>> latest BIND book from O=92Reilly.  So if this is now Bad(tm) can we post s=
>> omething about why it is bad, and what the recommended practice is?
> 
> Because usually it is a error.  $ORIGIN sets "@" not the current owner name.
> 
> $ORIGIN netconsonance.com
> 	SOA ...
> 	NS ...
> 
> $ORIGIN netconsonance.com
> @	SOA ...
> @	NS …

There’s actually no $ORIGIN statement in these zone files. It’s sending this error in response to 

@ IN SOA …
    IN NS …
    IN NS …
    IN MX …

This above is not only perfectly bog-standard, but it is shown this way in RFC1035 and not obsoleted yet by any succeeding standard. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035

-- 
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



More information about the bind-workers mailing list