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

    DNS Resolver

    2.2 Snapshot Feedback and Problems - RETIRED
    44
    186
    124.2k
    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.
    • 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
                                          • M
                                            mir
                                            last edited by

                                            For a censor free and no logging  DNS service which supports DNSSEC I can recommend this:
                                            http://www.censurfridns.dk/

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post