Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    DNS Resolver

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved 2.2 Snapshot Feedback and Problems - RETIRED
    186 Posts 44 Posters 149.0k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • N
      nzimmers
      last edited by

      I'm a pretty novice user but wanted to provide some feedback and see if there are any suggestions.  I'm currently using 2.2-BETA (i386) built on Thu Dec 04 08:23:23 CST 2014

      when I check Status->Services  several times in a row I see Unbound DNS Resolver running and stopped at various times so it seems like it's constantly stopping and restarting.

      in the general setup, I have Allow "DNS server list to be overridden by DHCP/PPP on WAN" unchecked and "Do not use the DNS Forwarder as a DNS server for the firewall" checked.

      not sure if I have something configured wrong…..

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • H
        Hugovsky
        last edited by

        Check the posts near the end of previous page. Might be your issue.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • MikeV7896M
          MikeV7896
          last edited by

          @Hugovsky:

          Check the posts near the end of previous page. Might be your issue.

          Specifically, this one…

          https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=78356.msg464921#msg464921

          The S in IOT stands for Security

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • X
            xbipin
            last edited by

            i started using the new dns resolver but im having one issue, i have set to reset the pppoe connection ever night so when this happens, unbound stops working, i get these errors in system log continuously

            Dec 11 09:44:44 	unbound: [7669:0] error: can't bind socket: Can't assign requested address
Dec 11 09:44:44 	unbound: [7669:0] debug: failed address 92.98.234.229 port 61031
Dec 11 09:44:44 	unbound: [7669:0] error: can't bind socket: Can't assign requested address
Dec 11 09:44:44 	unbound: [7669:0] debug: failed address 92.98.234.229 port 19660
Dec 11 09:44:44 	unbound: [7669:0] error: can't bind socket: Can't assign requested address
Dec 11 09:44:44 	unbound: [7669:0] debug: failed address 92.98.234.229 port 26847
Dec 11 09:44:44 	unbound: [7669:0] error: can't bind socket: Can't assign requested address
Dec 11 09:44:44 	unbound: [7669:0] debug: failed address 92.98.234.229 port 26531
Dec 11 09:44:44 	unbound: [7669:0] error: can't bind socket: Can't assign requested address
Dec 11 09:44:44 	unbound: [7669:0] debug: failed address 92.98.234.229 port 65308
Dec 11 09:44:44 	unbound: [7669:0] error: can't bind socket: Can't assign requested address
Dec 11 09:44:44 	unbound: [7669:0] debug: failed address 92.98.234.229 port 19113
            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • R
              router_wang
              last edited by

              Does the resolver also handle IPv6 dns requests?

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • C
                cmb
                last edited by

                @router_wang:

                Does the resolver also handle IPv6 dns requests?

                Of course.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • N
                  NobodyHere
                  last edited by

                  We're running the December 10th build. I can confirm issues with a new WAN address breaking unbound. When our PPPoE WAN link gets a new IP address, the resolver will reply with internal IPs set via DHCP clientIDs, but any external DNS lookup made via a system on the LAN fails.

                  DNS resolving on the firewall continues to work, so it's clearly an issue with unbound.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • C
                    cmb
                    last edited by

                    @NobodyHere:

                    We're running the December 10th build. I can confirm issues with a new WAN address breaking unbound. When our PPPoE WAN link gets a new IP address, the resolver will reply with internal IPs set via DHCP clientIDs, but any external DNS lookup made via a system on the LAN fails.

                    DNS resolving on the firewall continues to work, so it's clearly an issue with unbound.

                    https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/4095

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • N
                      NobodyHere
                      last edited by

                      I'm not sure what a message consisting solely of a link to a similar bug report means…

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • P
                        phil.davis
                        last edited by

                        @NobodyHere:

                        I'm not sure what a message consisting solely of a link to a similar bug report means…

                        I think cmb means "it is a known issue and there is a bug report for it".
                        It does really need fixing - as you have described, DNS resolution can stop working on a WAN DHCP address change, if you have an "unfortunate" combination of Unbound in forwarder mode… settings.

                        As the Greek philosopher Isosceles used to say, "There are 3 sides to every triangle."
                        If I helped you, then help someone else - buy someone a gift from the INF catalog http://secure.inf.org/gifts/usd/

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • C
                          cmb
                          last edited by

                          @phil.davis:

                          @NobodyHere:

                          I'm not sure what a message consisting solely of a link to a similar bug report means…

                          I think cmb means "it is a known issue and there is a bug report for it".

                          Yes, figured that was clear.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • D
                            dstroot
                            last edited by

                            Latest version broke unbound for me - it did not start after the upgrade.  I had to uncheck "Enable DNSSEC Support" to get it to come up.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • J
                              jbc
                              last edited by

                              I have DNS resolver setup to use opendns via dnscrypt-proxy.
                              I then have firewall rules setup to only allow lan clients to query lan address on port 53,
                              and block requests to remote DNS'; Everything works in this regard (no dns leaks).

                              But, if I query an unknown, none existant name, such as qwertyuiopas.dfghjklzxcvbnm
                              I get:
                              drill qwertyuiopas.dfghjklzxcvbnm
                              ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, rcode: NXDOMAIN, id: 40495
                              ;; flags: qr rd ra ; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
                              ;; QUESTION SECTION:
                              ;; qwertyuiopas.dfghjklzxcvbnm. IN      A

                              ;; ANSWER SECTION:

                              ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
                              .      2918    IN      SOA    a.root-servers.net. nstld.verisign-grs.com. 2014122700 1800 900 604800 86400

                              ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:

                              ;; Query time: 28 msec
                              ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1
                              ;; WHEN: Sat Dec 27 18:05:03 2014
                              ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 120

                              And if I ping qwertyuiopas.dfghjklzxcvbnm; It resolves to my WAN ip… (I would expect an unknown host response)

                              I have "NAT Reflection mode for port forwards" set to Pure NAT, could this be the culprit?

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • D
                                dstroot
                                last edited by

                                I am trying to do the same - can your describe this further?

                                "I have DNS resolver setup to use opendns via dnscrypt-proxy.
                                I then have firewall rules setup to only allow lan clients to query lan address on port 53,
                                and block requests to remote DNS';"

                                Right now I have DNS (53) blocked outbound from the LAN and Resolver in forwarding mode using OpenDNS.  However DNSSEC is giving me issues.

                                What was the process to get dnscrypt-proxy going properly?

                                Best,
                                Dan

                                firewall_home_lan_-_Services__DNS_Resolver.png
                                firewall_home_lan_-_Services__DNS_Resolver.png_thumb
                                firewall_home_lan_-_Services__DNS_Resolver__Advanced.png
                                firewall_home_lan_-_Services__DNS_Resolver__Advanced.png_thumb

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • D
                                  doktornotor Banned
                                  last edited by

                                  @dstroot:

                                  "I have DNS resolver setup to use opendns via dnscrypt-proxy.
                                  Right now I have DNS (53) blocked outbound from the LAN and Resolver in forwarding mode using OpenDNS.  However DNSSEC is giving me issues.

                                  DNSSEC != the OpenDNS nonsense that noone else uses. If you want DNSSEC, do not use OpenDNS.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • J
                                    jbc
                                    last edited by

                                    I installed the dnscrypt-proxy package and setup unbound with a forward-zone to 127.0.0.1.
                                    I then setup the dnscrypt-proxy, first using dnscrypt.eu-nl; which worked for a bit, but is unstable, so right now I have it querying opendns while I investigate the dnscrypt.eu issue…

                                    btw. I have dnssec checked. no problem.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • D
                                      dstroot
                                      last edited by

                                      @ doktornotor: "If you want DNSSEC, do not use OpenDNS."

                                      OK - do you have a recommendation what to use?

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • D
                                        dstroot
                                        last edited by

                                        @JBC - Thank you.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • J
                                          jbc
                                          last edited by

                                          I am probably misguided, admittedly, I am not an expect on these matters,
                                          but what is the problem with dnscrypt used in conjuction with DNSSEC,
                                          as far as I see, they solve different issues…

                                          Look at #3: What about DNSSEC? Does this eliminate the need for DNSSEC?

                                          https://www.opendns.com/about/innovations/dnscrypt/

                                          And again, I actually don't want to use opendns, but dnscrypt.eu.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • D
                                            doktornotor Banned
                                            last edited by

                                            @dstroot:

                                            @ doktornotor: "If you want DNSSEC, do not use OpenDNS."

                                            OK - do you have a recommendation what to use?

                                            If you are using the DNS censorship features from OpenDNS, I have no suggestions.  :P Unbound is just fine as DNSSEC-validating recursive resolver, without any need for forwarding anywhere.

                                            @jbc:

                                            but what is the problem with dnscrypt used in conjuction with DNSSEC,
                                            Look at #3: What about DNSSEC? Does this eliminate the need for DNSSEC?
                                            https://www.opendns.com/about/innovations/dnscrypt/

                                            You cannot use OpenDNS servers for DNSSEC validation. They don't validate anything.

                                            
>nslookup www.dnssec-failed.org 8.8.4.4
Server:  google-public-dns-b.google.com
Address:  8.8.4.4

*** google-public-dns-b.google.com can't find www.dnssec-failed.org: Server failed

>nslookup www.dnssec-failed.org 208.67.222.222
Server:  resolver1.opendns.com
Address:  208.67.222.222

Non-authoritative answer:
Name:    www.dnssec-failed.org
Addresses:  68.87.109.242
          69.252.193.191
                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.