Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:13:40 -0700
From:      bmah@CA.Sandia.GOV (Bruce A. Mah)
To:        Jason Canon <jcanon@comtechnologies.com>
Cc:        bmah@california.sandia.gov, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>, Igor Roshchin <igor@physics.uiuc.edu>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: netstat -r 
Message-ID:  <199904222213.PAA28256@stennis.ca.sandia.gov>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Apr 1999 17:44:26 EDT." <371F9839.1AF82914@comtechnologies.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==_Exmh_-1943605032P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

If memory serves me right, Jason Canon wrote:

> Your posting clarifies that indeed the RFC 1918 authoritative servers were
> responsible for what both Igor and I observed.   I run both the firewall and
> NAT.  Do we know if the so called "sub-optimal" implementation is confined to
> certain versions and/or if a patch has been released that will reduce the
> queries?

Hi Jason--

Much of this is really news to me, and everything I know about the situation 
comes from the exchange of email on -stable [1] and the message I quoted from 
comp.protocols.dns.bind.

I'm guessing that the "sub-optimal" firewall and NAT implementations would be 
those that either:  1) Did not provide any way to answer queries for private 
address space themselves or 2) Forwarded DNS queries for the private address 
space out to the public network.

If it's helpful to know what I'm doing:  My private network sits behind a 
FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE box running natd.  It also runs named, which is configured 
as a master for the addresses (and associated names) on my private network, 
and forwarding all other queries to my ISP's DNS servers.  Apparently I 
unknowingly did the right thing, because I didn't even notice the changes in 
the authoritative servers for the RFC 1918 space.  (Mostly I did this as an 
exercise to make sure I knew how to set up BIND 8.)

Hope this helps...

Bruce.

[1]  Did this ever have anything to do with -stable?  I must have missed the 
start of this thread, if so.




--==_Exmh_-1943605032P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBNx+fFKjOOi0j7CY9AQE6DwP/VPTyFj2xGC9e9ijOSYrzqfAp1wGv0K+D
zOLFgnW1fGe9rcPEzlmJ3/sS7lfZQ89+TiwDu+gX/EzHJOIEHePTmMTvN1Oz5mws
rS3E5UVqDmdTGmSpkiPHLjGhkKf1OuLLX5/H9mOoNBKJcYRI/jgykcN2drK4HrAX
8E8SjOW8Wxs=
=wYmw
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

--==_Exmh_-1943605032P--


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904222213.PAA28256>