Re: [DNSOP] Unexpected REFUSED from BIND when using example config from RFC7706

Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> Fri, 07 April 2017 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <bjorn@mork.no>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D2081293FF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 01:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mork.no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JAiLZuowS4Uk for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 01:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from canardo.mork.no (canardo.mork.no [IPv6:2001:4641::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7273512948F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 01:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miraculix.mork.no ([IPv6:2a02:2121:45:dc4d:b474:86ff:fe5d:4ecf]) (authenticated bits=0) by canardo.mork.no (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v378oEeW000341 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:50:15 +0200
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mork.no; s=b; t=1491555015; bh=kuj5q46JowDe77skua/Uv8Q5XHeZNCYXSkRvbVQzSWI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:Message-ID:From; b=kFob2P5dGm8AITS+gf7WKkpMGBQXxAz2zD/1m30jIroK13gT6pxIbFOFqm7EUfIKt cRcC8PE0VWNpvDP+ccnyA0b84GzPj6m5V/stH37d9hp3GHgdURIFOl2DR3FrFJJjOn 2zVc0tN3N8NSH6jZQCX8AxLk1rgAGEu73P8ARPrA=
Received: from bjorn by miraculix.mork.no with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <bjorn@mork.no>) id 1cwPar-00015C-GZ; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:50:09 +0200
From: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= <bjorn@mork.no>
To: bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Organization: m
References: <87inmhrjpx.fsf@miraculix.mork.no> <2448193.4rPzoQ60ob@linux-hs2j> <f321b974-2149-478d-9b63-a19d10ed013e@Spark> <1560750.L0Fn6CvLxk@linux-hs2j> <8760igpr2n.fsf@miraculix.mork.no> <20170407082326.GH17910@server.ds9a.nl>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:50:09 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20170407082326.GH17910@server.ds9a.nl> (bert hubert's message of "Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:23:26 +0200")
Message-ID: <87vaqgob3y.fsf@miraculix.mork.no>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130015 (Ma Gnus v0.15) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at canardo
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nLsotXvYe0Xs3iT2PmfT5trTIkQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Unexpected REFUSED from BIND when using example config from RFC7706
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:50:19 -0000

bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:20:00AM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> Just to avoid any confusion: Although I demonstrated the issue by
>> running BIND on my laptop only, the real usage scenario is resolver
>> service for a few million distinct administrative domains (aka
>> "customers").  Changing the trust anchor is not an option.
>
> Perhaps https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users is a great place
> to discuss BIND configurations and issues.

Definitely.  Or even bind-workers when it comes to questions about the
reason for making static-stub zones recursive only.

The reason I ask here first, is because RFC 7706 includes a BIND
specific configuration example (as well as examples for other recursive
server software).  So before considering changing config or code, I
wanted to know the background of that example. Was there a real reason
for the obscure(?)  "static-stub" zone type, or was that just an
arbitrary choice?

My apologies if this is considered OT here. I will shut up now.



Bjørn