Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:18:56 +0200 From: Andreas Pettersson <andpet@telia.com> To: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BIND 9.3.1 - How to get rid of AAAA querys? Message-ID: <46E97100.8060703@telia.com> In-Reply-To: <200709122256.l8CMuVLx004978@drugs.dv.isc.org> References: <200709122256.l8CMuVLx004978@drugs.dv.isc.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Andrews wrote: >> When looking in the querylog for BIND 9.3.1 running on FreeBSD 5.4, >> almost every other log entry specifies an AAAA query. The only client is >> localhost. I see no reason right now to have BIND wasting resources on >> IPv6 requests, so I added >> >> named_flags="-4" >> >> to rc.conf and restarted named. Sockstat tells me named is listening >> only on udp4 and tcp4, but I still get lots of AAAA entries in the querylog: >> >> 12-Sep-2007 21:40:47.129 client 127.0.0.1#60103: query: >> smtp.secureserver.net IN AAAA + >> 12-Sep-2007 21:40:47.648 client 127.0.0.1#64489: query: >> smtp.where.secureserver.net IN AAAA + >> 12-Sep-2007 21:40:47.847 client 127.0.0.1#61673: query: >> smtp.secureserver.net IN A + >> 12-Sep-2007 21:40:47.869 client 127.0.0.1#53040: query: >> mailstore1.secureserver.net IN AAAA + >> 12-Sep-2007 21:40:47.871 client 127.0.0.1#54473: query: >> mailstore1.secureserver.net IN A + >> 12-Sep-2007 21:40:58.261 client 127.0.0.1#58124: query: >> 120.86.248.87.in-addr.arpa IN PTR + >> 12-Sep-2007 21:40:58.340 client 127.0.0.1#56511: query: >> static-ip-87-248-86-120.promax.media.pl IN AAAA + >> 12-Sep-2007 21:40:58.410 client 127.0.0.1#61212: query: >> static-ip-87-248-86-120.promax.media.pl IN A + >> >> What can I do to get rid of these? >> > > Teach each and every application not to make them. :-) > Thanks to everyone who has answered. As soon as I read the first sentence in Max's reply I realized the issue, and I might now have reconsidered my "problem" as a "no problem" :-) > [snip] > Why don't you go the other way and get yourself IPv6 > connectivity. You do realise that you will require it to > reach many sites in about 3 years time as they will be IPv6 > only For almost 10 years I've heard discussions about the successor to IPv4, but from my point of view (may differ from others..) not much has happened. Of course, I can imagine that when the wheel starts rolling for real things might change quickly. 3 years may prove to be correct, but are there any clear signs pointing in this direction? -- Andreas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46E97100.8060703>