Excessive DNS lookups for _http._tcp.pkg.pfsense.org after 2.3 upgrade

[geeknik]

I don't have a pcap yet, but here is what I see from the router:

[2.3-RELEASE][xxx@xxx]/root: dig _http._tcp.pkg.pfsense.org srv @208.67.222.222

; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4 <<>> _http._tcp.pkg.pfsense.org srv @208.67.222.222
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 1335
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;_http._tcp.pkg.pfsense.org.    IN      SRV

;; ANSWER SECTION:
_http._tcp.pkg.pfsense.org. 220 IN      SRV     10 10 80 pkg.pfsense.org.

;; Query time: 19 msec
;; SERVER: 208.67.222.222#53(208.67.222.222)
;; WHEN: Tue May 03 17:32:14 CDT 2016
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 90

[2.3-RELEASE][xxx@xxx]/root: dig _http._tcp.pkg.pfsense.org srv

; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4 <<>> _http._tcp.pkg.pfsense.org srv
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 17256
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;_http._tcp.pkg.pfsense.org.    IN      SRV

;; ANSWER SECTION:
_http._tcp.pkg.pfsense.org. 300 IN      SRV     10 10 80 pkg.pfsense.org.

;; Query time: 55 msec
;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1)
;; WHEN: Tue May 03 17:32:21 CDT 2016
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 90

My OpenDNS stats for the previous 24 hours indicate almost 10K requests for _http._tcp.pkg.pfsense.org again. I'll have a pcap ready by tomorrow.

[cmb]

You're getting the right reply, it certainly seems sane.

[geeknik]

I left the packet capture routing running (via diag_packet_capture.php) overnight. Stopped it this morning and downloaded the pcap and it was only 24 bytes and contained no useful information. However, there were over 11K dns requests for that record again during the same time period I tried the packet capture.


[johnpoz]

Well if your saying you did 11k dns queries for that, and your pcap was empty then clearly you were not capturing on the right interface or the right port or someone is clearly mistaken to the number of queries that are happening ;)

[cmb]

What filter did you have on the capture? Sounds like you ended up filtering out pretty much everything.

[geeknik]

I disabled dnsmasq and setup/enabled unbound and the problem seems to have gone away. As much as I like bug hunting, I'm not going to dive into dnsmasq and figure out the why… I guess we can consider this issue closed.

[cmb]

Ah, now that makes sense.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=579536

dnsmasq not caching SRV records is "by design". Seems like a really poor design to me.

Guess you must keep your dashboard up all the time? Or at least a lot.

dnsmasq will query all configured DNS servers simultaneously, so in the case of OpenDNS at least assuming you have both their IPs in there, they'll show you 2 queries per 1 that's actually done, which was doubling it.

[Harvy66]

@cmb:

Ah, now that makes sense.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=579536

dnsmasq not caching SRV records is "by design". Seems like a really poor design to me.

Guess you must keep your dashboard up all the time? Or at least a lot.

dnsmasq will query all configured DNS servers simultaneously, so in the case of OpenDNS at least assuming you have both their IPs in there, they'll show you 2 queries per 1 that's actually done, which was doubling it.

I remember reading something about Linux where most distros would query all DNS servers and use the first response. Everyone talking about it were so proud about configuring 8+ dns servers and getting the fastest response. They have a funny mindset in that camp.

[kpa]

Ouch, that's bad… What is the situation anyway with the DNS forwarders, isn't DNSMasq a bit redundant since it's not doing anything that Unbound can't do?

[cmb]

@kpa:

What is the situation anyway with the DNS forwarders, isn't DNSMasq a bit redundant since it's not doing anything that Unbound can't do?

No, that's not true. dnsmasq can do things that Unbound can't, and vice versa. There are also behavior differences between them, which is why we didn't force everyone to Unbound.

[johnpoz]

One thing off the top that dnsmasq can do that unbound can not is do localized responses..  Not aware that unbound can do that?  Pretty sure dnsmasq will send queries to all dns servers listed and use the fasted response.  I believe the way unbound does it is sequential?

As cmb states there are differences in for sure.. dnsmasq is by design a forwarder, while out of the box unbound is meant to be a resolver while it can be put in forwarder mode that is not where it shines so having both available for sure makes better choices for pfsense.  Now if they had an authoritative dns that would be the homerun like bind..