bind 9.4.1-p1

[Kevin Darcy]

I'm not exactly sure what your problem is here, but vanilla-configured 
BIND 9.x masters and vanilla-configured BIND 9.x slaves should have no 
incompatibility problems whatsoever between them; we've run like that 
for years. You could check the configs on both sides for "server" 
clauses that define TSIG keys or transfer-formats (i.e. "one-answer" 
versus "many-answers"), that could be giving you problems, but I doubt 
you'll find any.

You should also look in the logs on both sides for any errors.

As for those temp files, it's a little mystifying to me. Those files 
typically get left behind when some sort of fatal error occurs during 
the zone transfer. But, as far as I can tell from the code, BIND 9 uses 
the db-XXXXX temp-filename format, and BIND 8 doesn't (at least, I 
checked through version 8.4.1; I don't have any versions later than that 
since BIND 8 has been retired). So why would the temp files claim to be 
from BIND 8?

It's almost as if you were unintentionally running BIND 8 *and* BIND 9 
at the same time, with the same directory and same zone files. That's 
bad news, especially since BIND 9 keeps journal files and if the main 
zone file gets out of sync with the journal, BIND gets quite confused.

But that's just speculation. Error messages from the logs would probably 
give you the best lead on solving this problem.

                                                                         
         - Kevin

mark evans wrote:
> i upgraded our name servers from 8.4.4 to 9.4.1.  The master seems to run
> fine on 9.4.1.  When i run the slave 9.4.1, it seems the zones aren't being
> trasfered properly.  Then after a while the zones begin to expire, and
> odvious with out the zone transfer, problems start to arise.
> When the master is run at 9.4.1 and slave at 8.4.4 everything seems to work
> fine.
> While poking around the slave i notice a set files like this:
> db-RJ2qRqDS
> db-SzOb6MvH
> db-T0qBsCoV
> db-Uu5fZE7v
> db-WVHIEYuZ
> db-Wwt6a4qU
> db-YTjS9eK5
> db-gdO2n3LH
> db-kBvivlyx
> db-nUkGm2hW
> db-qH68dJ8J
>
> the contents of one of the files is listed below:
>
> ;; BIND version named 8.4.4 Thu Jun 16 15:21:48 CDT 2005
> ; BIND version root at pop2.bayou.com:/usr/ports/dns/bind84/work/src/bin/named
> ; zone 'crusecypress.com'   first transfer
> ; from [209.209.192.10].53:53 (local [209.209.192.20].51898) using AXFR at
> Mon Oct 22 13:10:21 2007
> ; NOT TSIG verified
> $ORIGIN com.
> crusecypress    7200    IN      SOA     ns1.bayou.com. root.ns1.bayou.com. (
>                 2002061921 3600 900 3600000 600 )
>         7200    IN      NS      ns1.bayou.com.
>         7200    IN      NS      ns2.bayou.com.
>         7200    IN      A       209.209.192.58
>         7200    IN      MX      5 pop.bayou.com.
> $ORIGIN crusecypress.com.
> ftp     7200    IN      A       209.209.192.10
> mail    7200    IN      CNAME   pop.bayou.com.
> smtp    7200    IN      CNAME   smtp.bayou.com.
> www     7200    IN      A       209.209.192.58 Thu Jun 16 15:21:48 CDT 2005
> ; BIND version root at pop2.bayou.com:/usr/ports/dns/bind84/work/src/bin/named
> ; zone 'crusecypress.com'   first transfer
> ; from [209.209.192.10].53:53 (local [209.209.192.20].51898) using AXFR at
> Mon Oct 22 13:10:21 2007
> ; NOT TSIG verified
> $ORIGIN com.
> crusecypress    7200    IN      SOA     ns1.bayou.com. root.ns1.bayou.com. (
>                 2002061921 3600 900 3600000 600 )
>         7200    IN      NS      ns1.bayou.com.
>         7200    IN      NS      ns2.bayou.com.
>         7200    IN      A       209.209.192.58
>         7200    IN      MX      5 pop.bayou.com.
> $ORIGIN crusecypress.com.
> ftp     7200    IN      A       209.209.192.10
> mail    7200    IN      CNAME   pop.bayou.com.
> smtp    7200    IN      CNAME   smtp.bayou.com.
> www     7200    IN      A       209.209.192.58
>
>
> The time and dates on the files seem to coincide when 9.4.1 was running on
> both master and slave. do you guys know what these file are and why it would
> be creating the files with these names?  Thus far i have been unable to find
> any info about them on google. One thing that jumps out as a issue. is the
> file at the top references "BIND version named 8.4.4."  This is a shot in
> the dark, but Is it possible the bind 9.4.1 on the master is using a
> transfer method for 8.4.4?
>
> Thanks
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>