BIND 9 - I'm not sure is working correctly!

Mark netx at softhome.net
Sun May 20 10:28:02 UTC 2001


I'm asking this because I just upgraded from RH 7.0 to RH 7.1. BIND 9.1.0/1 is
acting very strange on RH 7.1 (having exactly the same config and zone files).

On RH 7.0 (with BIND 9.1.1)     ->           ping -c 3 www.comefnet.com

PING www.comefnet.com (193.230.52.100) from 193.230.52.100 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 193.230.52.100: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=315 usec
64 bytes from 193.230.52.100: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=90 usec
64 bytes from 193.230.52.100: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=79 usec

--- 193.230.52.100 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 0.079/0.161/0.315/0.109 ms


On Rh 7.1 (with BIND 9.1.1)       ->        ping -c 25 www.comefnet.com

PING www.comefnet.com (193.230.52.100) from 193.230.52.100 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 193.230.52.100: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=358 usec
64 bytes from 193.230.52.100: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=9.030 sec
64 bytes from 193.230.52.100: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=18.060 sec
64 bytes from 193.230.52.100: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=23.712 sec
64 bytes from 193.230.52.100: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=32.730 sec
64 bytes from 193.230.52.100: icmp_seq=5 ttl=255 time=41.750 sec

--- www.comefnet.com ping statistics ---
25 packets transmitted, 7 packets received, 72% packet loss <----------- ?????????
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 0.358/25150.562/50770.145/16622.264 ms

I think the ping binary is also modified because is working fine IF AND ONLY IF:

1. I add "in-addr.arpa" zone for my domain (very hard because is not an entire C class) or
2. I use ping -n www.mydomain.com (-n disable host lookup) or
3. I use BIND 9.1.1 on RH 7.0 and use the ping that comes with RH 7.0. 

So "ping" that comes with RH 7.1 needs "-n" to work. 

"nslookup" and "dig" are working fine returning correct info, and LAN clients don't have
problems with DNS and they are UNIX and Win9x.

After all this my question is:

How can I be sure BIND 9 is working correctly ? 


Mark



More information about the bind-users mailing list