[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#761050: Please read Re: openresolv sets local bind to always forward requests, even when local bind is authoritative



Sorry aboutt he late response, for some reason this ended up in my spam
filter.

> On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:25:38 +0200 (CEST)
>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Herbert Parentes Fortes Neto wrote:
>>
>>> The upstream said:
>>>
>>> "Not really an openresolv bug as I see it.
>>> For example 192.168.x.x can route to 10.x.x.x even if both sets are not
>>> publicly route-able. In-fact some Spanish ISPs do this for their
>>> Internet TV."
>>
>> I regret to say that upstream did not understand my bug report (perhaps I
>> did not explain clearly).  I never claimed that requests to resolve
>> unroutable IPs should never be forwarded; I did claim (and maintain) that IF
>> the local bind is set up to be authoritative on a domain (which happens to
>> be an unroutable block of IPs for me, but does not have to be), then
>> openresolv should not override that by always forwarding queries in any
>> case.  So the problem is not about forwarding queries involving unroutable
>> addresses (even if that happens in my case) but about forwarding queries
>> that can have (and therefore should have) an authoritative answer from the
>> local bind, without going any further.
>>
>> If I did not explain clearly, please let me know and I will try to explain
>> better. If you confirm wontfix, I will find a way to tweak my local
>> configuration of bind + openresolv to work around this for myself, but I do
>> believe the current behaviour is wrong in principle and in practice, so it
>> should be fixed in a more general way.

OK, so you have setup bind to be authortative in some way.
Openresolv wants to setup forwarding servers.

These two facts maybe in conflict.

Now, I am no expert with bind configs, but it would really help if you
could post your non working configuration and explain how it should be
changed by openresolv to work for you.
If you can do that, I'm sure we can make more progress with this issue.

Roy


Reply to: