Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:50:18 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unbound and ntp issuse Message-ID: <20160606135018.GL75630@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <44y46ie92p.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> References: <20160602122727.GB75625@zxy.spb.ru> <44lh2mi0k5.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <20160603191523.GE75630@zxy.spb.ru> <44y46ie92p.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:33:02AM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 02:34:18PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> >
> >> Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> writes:
> >>
> >> > Default install with local_unbound and ntpd can't be functional with
> >> > incorrect date/time in BIOS:
> >> >
> >> > Unbound requred correct time for DNSSEC check and refuseing queries
> >> > ("Jul 1 20:17:29 yellowrat unbound: [3444:0] info: failed to prime
> >> > trust anchor -- DNSKEY rrset is not secure . DNSKEY IN")
> >> >
> >> > ntpd don't have any numeric IP of ntp servers in ntp.conf -- only
> >> > symbolic names like 0.freebsd.pool.ntp.org, as result -- can't
> >> > resolve (see above, about DNSKEY).
> >>
> >> I can't see how this would happen. DNSSEC doesn't seem to be required in
> >> a regular install as far as I can see. Certainly I don't have any
> >
> > I don't know reasson for enforcing DNSSEC in regular install.
> > I am just select `local_unbound` at setup time and enter `127.0.0.1` as
> > nameserver address.
>
> That's not enough to configure unbound as a fully recursive DNS
> server.
What I am missing?
Need to fix unbound setup scripts? bsdinstall scripts?
As I see unbound setup scripts detects 127.0.0.1 in resolv.conf and
configured unbound as fully recursive DNS server.
> If your system gets its address through DHCP, it is probably
> getting DNS server addresses as well, and would work fine *without* your
> configuring any of the DNS state.
I am have static address and don't getting DNS server address.
> >> problem on any of my systems, and I've never configured an anchor on the
> >> internal systems.
> >>
> >> > IMHO, ntp.conf need to include some numeric IP of public ntp servers.
> >>
> >> Ouch; that's a terrible idea, for several different reasons.
> >
> > What else?
>
> All the normal reasons that hard-coding IP addresses is a bad idea; they
> can change, you're encouraging a lot of people to use the same ones, etc.
And how to resolve this issuse:
- default install with unbound as recursive DNS server (by default
enforcing DNSSEC)
- ntp time synchronisation
- stale CMOS time (2008 year)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160606135018.GL75630>