Maintained by: NLnet Labs

[Unbound-users] Effect of val-bogus-ttl

W.C.A. Wijngaards
Thu Oct 29 14:42:51 CET 2009

Hi Florian,

Could you retry this with current svn trunk of unbound?
The retry logic in case of dnssec failures should blacklist
the cached missing-dnskey-response and try to go to the
network again at step 6.

Best regards,

On 10/26/2009 11:35 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I've run the following test with Unbound 1.3.4:
>    1. Set up Unbound with the IANA DNSSEC testbed root and approriate
>       trust anchors.
>    2. Check that the AD bit is set for some secure RRsets (to verify
>       that step 1 has been implemented correctly).
>    3. Modify the system such that queries for all name servers of a
>       certain domain (let's say "") are answered by a name
>       server which has got an A wildcard at the root, does not
>       implement DNSSEC, and returns NOERROR for all the DNSSEC RR
>       types.  (Except for the IPv6 servers, which are not reachable
>       anyway despite IPv6 support being enabled in Unbound because the
>       kernel does not support IPv6.  Disabling IPv6 altogether does not
>       seem to make a difference.)
>    4. Send a query for to the Unbound resolver.  As
>       expected, it results in a validation failure and a SERVFAIL
>       response.
>    5. Send another query for  It results an immediate
>       SERVFAIL response from Unbound.  Also expected.
>    5. Wait (longer than the configured val-bogus-ttl value).
>    6. Send a query for  Again, an immediate SERVFAIL
>       response is sent by Unbound (and nothing is logged).
> The result of step 6 is not what I would expect.  I think there should
> be a fresh upstream transaction.  If I lift the redirection
> established in step 3, queries for non-cached names are stilled
> answered with SERVFAIL responses, after an upstream transaction.
> Looking at the log for the cache-miss case, it seems that Unbound
> still caches the NODATA DNSKEY response for
> [1256554227] unbound[28667:0] info: Missing DNSKEY RRset in response to DNSKEY query.
> Could Unbound lower the TTL on the DNSKEY RRset in such cases?