This is a discussion on Re: NS records for subzone cause BIND 9 failures within the Bind Users forums, part of the DNS and Related Forums category; > > > > >When a parent zone has subzone data in it, NS records for the subzone > &...
|
|||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|||
|
> > > > >When a parent zone has subzone data in it, NS records for the subzone > > >will cause BIND 9 servers to fail to resolve any of the subzone's > > >data. The problem does not exist with 8.2.3, but does with 9.2.1 and > > >9.3.0. > > > > > Well, it's not a "problem"; it's the way DNS is supposed to work. When > > you delegate a zone to other nameservers, then those nameservers own the > > data in the zone, not you. The only exceptions are so-called "glue" > > records describing the nameservers for the child zone. Ordinary records, > > like A records which are not associated with nameservers, MX records and > > so forth, belong to the "closest enclosing zone", i.e. the child (or > > "child-most") zone. > > > > In our situation, the BIND 9 servers are secondary for the parent > zone, but not the subzone. The users at our location cannot resolve > any of the subzone data that is in the parent zone, but users at other > locations where they are running BIND 8 or Microsoft DNS can resolve > it. The subzone data in the parent zone are two NS records and A > records for the two subzone name servers. > > It looks like Microsoft DNS will use the data in the parent zone to > query the subzone name servers for the subzone data, but BIND will > not. This is the second time I have run into this problem, and have > solved it by slaving the subzone. > > This leaves me with two questions. My original question was why can't > BIND 9 resolve subzone data from a parent zone when NS records for the > subzone are in it? Sounds like you have forwarding enabled and havn't disabled forwarding for the subzone and/or you have recursion disabled. > In other words, if you have a bar.com zone with the following in it: > > $ORIGIN bar.com > foo NS ns1.foo > $ORIGIN foo.bar.com > ns1 A 1.2.3.4 > > Why can you resolve both the A and NS records with BIND 8, but nothing > with BIND 9? If the NS records are removed, the A records will resolve > with BIND 9. > > And the other question is can you delegate a subzone by putting NS and > A records for the subzone's servers in the parent zone? The answer > about glue records seems to indicate this is possible and it appears > that Microsoft DNS supports this, but it does not work with BIND 8 or > 9. I know Microsoft likes to make their own rules and seem to try to > be incompatible so they can take over the world, but a lot of the > people in other parts of my company are pro Microsoft and would like > to see BIND go away. The perspective "problem" with my BIND 9 servers > is giving them reason to push for a pure Microsoft solution. > > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org |