knot-resolver-users Květen 2024

knot-resolver-users@lists.nic.cz

4 participants
6 discussions

by Vladimír Čunát

Hello. In case you're using our upstream repositories for Debian or Ubuntu, as suggested on https://www.knot-resolver.cz/download/ you'll be running into their signing key expiring since today. As we didn't update it in time, you'll have to update it manually by re-running: wgethttps://secure.nic.cz/files/knot-resolver/knot-resolver-release.deb dpkg -i knot-resolver-release.deb Ticket: https://gitlab.nic.cz/knot/knot-resolver/-/issues/747 We also forgot to add Ubuntu 22.04, so that is fixed now, too. --Vladimir

1 měsíc, 1 týden

Re: KNOT sharing cache or not for different instances (nat64 vs no nat64)

by Vladimír Čunát

On 31/05/2024 19.00, oui.mages_0w(a)icloud.com wrote: > we have different TLS domains/certificates for dns64 and non dns64 Oh, OK. Such a thing hasn't occurred to us, so it's not possible. In that case I expect you'll need to stay on 5.x for now, with separate processes for dns64 and non-dns64 (but they can share the cache). Overall I don't think the current code can support multiple certificates.

3 měsíce

Re: KNOT sharing cache or not for different instances (nat64 vs no nat64)

by Vladimír Čunát

On 31/05/2024 13.04, oui.mages_0w(a)icloud.com wrote: > Unless the policy module allows to filter by listened IP, I will still > need to use split instances: we don’t select on the server side which > client is to use dns64 or not, but as an ISP, we leave the choice to > the clients to decide which dns resolver they want to use (one of ours > with or without dns64, or a third party). That is possible, but with 5.x I probably wouldn't recommend it, as it's been left out of documentation (by mistake) and overall I don't have much trust in that part of 5.x policies. But after you migrate to >= 6.x, I would recommend just having a single shared configuration. And in views you can select dst-subnet paired with dns64 options. Such deployments were taken into account when designing 6.x views. https://www.knot-resolver.cz/documentation/latest/config-views.html#config-… In 6.x it would probably also be harder for you to run multiple configurations at once on a single machine, so that's another reason to unify this when you migrate. --Vladimir

4 měsíce

KNOT resolver and NS serverers with CNAME

by Vladimír Čunát

On 14/05/2024 08.10, Josef Karliak via knot-dns-users wrote: > > ISC bind is strict about CNAME of NS server: > > skipping nameserver 'aa.bb.cz' *because it is a CNAME*, while > resolving '9.4/4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa/PTR'. > > How about Knot resolver ? > Hello. I believe there is neither effort to disallow them nor to make them work. Off the top of my head I'm not sure how it will be in practice; you could just try. Either way, please don't use them. (I replied to the correct mailing-list.) --Vladimir

4 měsíce

Knot Resolver 5.7.3

by Oto Šťáva

Dear Knot Resolver users, Knot Resolver version 5.7.3 (stable) has been released! This maintenance update brings a minor improvement to stats and a bugfix to missing NSEC3 records. An early-access version 6.0.8 including these changes and more will come at a later date - a few more things need to be finalized there before release. Improvements: - stats: add separate metrics for IPv6 and IPv4 (!1544) Bugfixes: - fix NSEC3 records missing in answer for positive wildcard expansion with the NSEC3 having over-limit iteration count (#910, !1550) Full changelog: https://gitlab.nic.cz/knot/knot-resolver/raw/v5.7.3/NEWS Sources: https://secure.nic.cz/files/knot-resolver/knot-resolver-5.7.3.tar.xz GPG signature: https://secure.nic.cz/files/knot-resolver/knot-resolver-5.7.3.tar.xz.asc Documentation: https://www.knot-resolver.cz/documentation/v5.7.3/ -- Oto Šťáva | Knot Resolver team lead | CZ.NIC z.s.p.o. PGP: 6DC2 B0CB 5935 EA7A 3961 4AA7 32B2 2D20 C9B4 E680

4 měsíce

Re: [knot-dns-users] Re: KNOT resolver and NS serverers with CNAME

by Vladimír Čunát

On 17/05/2024 22.43, Peter Thomassen wrote: > I think the question is whether Knot Resolver follows the letter of > the RFC, like BIND, or whether it is less strict. I'm not aware of RFCs saying that resolvers should fail in such situations. My understanding is more like it's allowed not to work. Anyway, it would be better to continue this thread on knot-resolver-users(a)lists.nic.cz (I already have posted there about this a couple days ago.) --Vladimir

4 měsíce, 2 týdny

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

knot-resolver-users Květen 2024