Split DNS (I know, I know)…

Derelict

You cannot push DNS servers to clients that will return different answers to the same queries and expect things to work. You can leave the pfSense DNS servers alone (Though I have no idea why you have 10.0.1.1 listed there. It should probably be removed.)

In your DHCP settings, tell the server to push the IP address of pfSense to your clients - usually the same IP as the default gateway. Nothing else. If you want two internal DNS servers, then you have to configure another one that will return the same answers to the same queries.

colterlovette

johnpoz:

No, no I am not. I replaced my DYN address with example.us for my own comfort reasons.

While I appreciate your input, try not to be rude to me. Humbly, I'm actually a very smart person and it's worth noting that I have felt frustrations with others when I find their problems elementary/minuscule in nature; but try to not degrade people.

I understand that there is a problem within the settings. What I can't find is where that error is as even everything you stated I have gone over and have a full understanding of.

If you read the last post I wrote you will see that I covered the part about ensuring my client (macbook) is using pfsense as it's primary DNS server, and the forwarder is setup with the host I am attempting to intercept.

I would say the only part about what you've stated that I don't connect to is this "unbound" terminology. I haven't seen that referenced in the literature I've read so far.

It's easy to be smart, it's harder to be kind. Especially when it's text on a screen with a shade of anonymity.

Thank you for your insights, I do appreciate what was constructive. :)

Derelict:

Thank you. I'll make the edits. I put the 10.0 in the list to just ensure the clients where getting the pfsense box as the first source (another member thought it worth the test). I'll fiddle with DHCP to ensure clients are getting the proper DNS.

Derelict

If you read the last post I wrote you will see that I covered the part about ensuring my client (macbook) is using pfsense as it's primary DNS server, and the forwarder is setup with the host I am attempting to intercept.

There is no "interception" involved. When an internal host asks for the IP address of server1.example.com, it should get the internal address in response.

When an external host asks the global DNS for the IP address of server1.example.com, it should get the external address.

It's really that simple. Drop-dead easy with host overrides in pfSense's DNS Forwarder or DNS Resolver.

colterlovette

Ok, got that, poorly expressed on my part, but I understand that premise.

I did an NS lookup and this is what I get from the mac:


Samuels-MBP:~ Colter$ nslookup
> home.example.us
Server:		10.0.1.1
Address:	10.0.1.1#53

Non-authoritative answer:
Name:	home.example.us
Address: 184.167.179.215

I checked and double checked that DNS is properly set on the mac to the PFsense box. The forwarder is on and configured to the exact point of the PF documentation with the host and everything as specified.

johnpoz

"to is this "unbound" terminology. I haven't seen that referenced in the literature I've read so far. "

Really haven't seen this anywhere? If you do a search on the forums for unbound, there are 13 pages of results.. On the 2.2 new stuff doc

https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/2.2_New_Features_and_Changes

DNS Resolver (unbound) enabled for new installs. #3396
DNS Forwarder (dnsmasq) disabled for new installs. #3396

Dude post up pictures of your over ride!!

Derelict

What, exactly, is entered in the host override in the forwarder. In that case you want:

Host: home
Domain: example.us
IP Address: internal_ip_address

colterlovette

@johnpoz:

"to is this "unbound" terminology. I haven't seen that referenced in the literature I've read so far. "

Really haven't seen this anywhere? If you do a search on the forums for unbound, there are 13 pages of results.. On the 2.2 new stuff doc

https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/2.2_New_Features_and_Changes

DNS Resolver (unbound) enabled for new installs. #3396
DNS Forwarder (dnsmasq) disabled for new installs. #3396

Dude post up pictures of your over ride!!

I am reading and following this: https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Why_can%27t_I_access_forwarded_ports_on_my_WAN_IP_from_my_LAN/OPTx_networks%3F

I wouldn't have searched for "unbound" on the forums as it's term I haven't learned yet..

@Derelict:

What, exactly, is entered in the host override in the forwarder. In that case you want:

Host: home
Domain: example.us
IP Address: internal_ip_address

Exactly that, to the T.

johnpoz

"Exactly that, to the T. "

No you don't or it would be working.. You sure you have the forwarder enabled and not the resolver (unbound).. Lets see your services tab, and your over ride tab.. I showed you mine..

See attached, the difference in the forwarder screen and the resolver screen, notice the forwarder part of the resolver.. If your putting the over rides in the wrong section they they will not work.

services.png_thumb
forwarder.png_thumb
resolver.png_thumb

Derelict

Sorry. Always works for me.

If you're using 2.1 do this:

Diagnostics > Command Prompt
Execute Shell Command Command: dig @ip.address.of.forwarder.used.by.hosts.for.dns home.example.us

If you're using 2.2 do this:

Diagnostics > Command Prompt
Execute Shell Command Command: drill @ip.address.of.forwarder.used.by.hosts.for.dns home.example.us

What does it say?

colterlovette

Ok, so running down the unbound resolver; it is indeed running.

The host settings I'm editing are in the services->DNS Forwarder. I noticed that in the Services->DNS Resolver under advanced there is also a host section that mimics what is found under the DNS Forwarder Section.

After some reading, the two are a one or the other scenario, yes? So, do I need to undo the Forwarder and enter the host into the Resolver to keep unbound running or should I disable unbound to revert back to dnsmasq (I did note that the documentation says to disable unbound to use resolver, but not that it's best practice if there is a better way).

Edit: after looking at John's screenshot I answered my own question maybe. Editing….

Edit 2:

Success!!! So it seems the entire issue was the confusion around the forwarder and the resolver and my lack of knowledge about the unbound change in 2.2. So John, thank you for pointing me in the right direction.

Derelict, thank you for your patience and continuing help.

Derelict

Yes. With the forwarder disabled the forwarder host overrides do nothing. While you're in there go into the Advanced settings tab and check Harden Glue and Harden DNSSEC data. Another thread. Just trust me.

colterlovette

@Derelict:

Yes. With the forwarder disabled the forwarder host overrides do nothing. While you're in there go into the Advanced settings tab and check Harden Glue and Harden DNSSEC data. Another thread. Just trust me.

Ok, done deal. Link to thread? Would love to know the why's.

Derelict

https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=88466.0

colterlovette

Nice read. Thank you for that. Having it defaulted seems like a must, to which Chris seems to have in mind for 2.2.1.

johnpoz

I think maybe if you don't have forwarder enabled that that whole section should be not shown, so that this sort of thing can not happen..

Or the over rides should be common to both?

Derelict

Common to both would be nice. Or at least a way to copy from one to the other. But you should be able to enter overrides with it disabled so you can enter your overrides before switching from one to the other.

doktornotor

https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/4332 <– see the hint in here.

colterlovette

@johnpoz:

I think maybe if you don't have forwarder enabled that that whole section should be not shown, so that this sort of thing can not happen..

Or the over rides should be common to both?

Would it be fair to say that, for the moment, the transition to the new service is just that; in transition? So maybe the idea is to have overlapping menus and options to keep both services alive for the masses (also to test the new availability before relying on it completely).

If this is the case, I would say there should be a selection option in the resolver to pick which service to use (never at the same time) and the corresponding menus within the GUI will simply work with whatever service is selected to be active.

Would this be logical?

johnpoz

I don't think the dns forwarder is going away any time soon. The option is there to run both if you want. But this new move to the resolver is confusing for many users, and having the over rides listed - its possible for example to do what you did put your over rides in the same section.

Its hard coding for layer 8 ;)