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 143.6k 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.
    • 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
                                          • J
                                            jbc
                                            last edited by

                                            @doktornotor:

                                            I see, thank you for clearing that up :)

                                            edit:
                                            Incase someone stumbles across this, here is a list of free dnscrypt servers;
                                            Column 8 notes if they support DNSSEC or not.

                                            https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy/blob/master/dnscrypt-resolvers.csv

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.