From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 20 14:17:34 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C53337B401 for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 14:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE1643FBD for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 14:17:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org) Received: from master.gorean.org (12-234-22-23.client.attbi.com[12.234.22.23]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <20030420211733053002ff7ke>; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:17:33 +0000 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 14:17:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: Jeremy Chadwick In-Reply-To: <20030418174956.GA71335@parodius.com> Message-ID: <20030420141329.U631@znfgre.tberna.bet> References: <20030418174956.GA71335@parodius.com> Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BIND-8/9 interface bug? Or is it FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:17:34 -0000 On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > Greetings. I've spoken with numerous other administrators > about the phenomenon I'm about to post, and the only answer > I've gotten so far is "Your box is broken" (how quaint). I > have two web/nameservers, both which exhibit this behaviour. I suspect the actual answer you got was that you're trying to do way too much stuff with the same two machines, which is correct; although clearly not what you wanted to hear. At minimum, based on your description of the problem, if you want named to behave differently for inside and outside traffic, you need two named instances on each box, with appropriate listen-on directives in each named.conf. I would highly recommend this approach if you're currently running both recursive and authoritative functions on the same named, which by your description I strongly suspect you are. Good luck, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection