Hi,
given the case that a ip6/xy block might be delegated to me by my ISP, I began investigating Knot DNS' functionality with regard to ip6.arpa.
Hereby I stumbled over the module synthrecord and do not really understand what it is used for.
From https://www.knot-dns.cz/docs/3.4/singlehtml/index.html#synthrecord-automati…
"Records are synthesized only if the query can't be satisfied from the zone."
Please excuse my ignorance, but why would/should/must one return something else than the following for hosts not in the zone?
kbn> host 2001:dead:beef::1
Host 1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.f.e.e.b.d.a.e.d.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
Any feedback is highly appreciated, thanks.
Regards,
Michael
Hi Bill,
You can't mix a configuration database and a configuration file.
You can initialize a database with `knotc conf-init` or `knotc conf-import`.
Then if you start knotd, the database will be used for reading and persistent writing.
The configuration database format is a custom format using LMDB. It's not intended to be accessed externally!
Daniel
On 3/29/25 19:56, Billiam Crashkopf wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm running Knot 3.4.4 on FreeBSD 14.2, installed from the distribution package repository.
>
> I'm trying to understand, is there a way to configure knotd using both the configuration file and the database? For example, can I use the configuration file for directives like listen and template, then use the configuration database for storing individual zone settings? So far, it appears that knotd only uses one or the other. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any command to explicitly load or flush configuration from the database. If I start with the config file, I can initialize the database, but upon stopping knotd nothing seems to be saved to the database. I also don't see any documentation on tooling to inspect the database on disk. What is the file format of the database?
>
> If anybody can help me to know more about how it works I would be most appreciative.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
Hello!
In July 2024, in the Knot-DNS 3.3.8 release message, Daniel writes:
>I would like to ask users with hardware HSMs to send us the output of `keymgr <hsm_keystore_id> keystore-test`
>This will allow us to update https://www.knot-dns.cz/docs/latest/html/appendices.html#compatible-pkcs-11…
We're now running Knot 3.4.4 against a Thales HSM (I have no details of the
actual device/model in use at this time) and I see the following data:
$ keymgr -c etc/knot.conf thales keystore-bench
Keystore id 'thales', type PKCS #11, threads 1
Algorithm Sigs/sec
RSASHA256 33
ECDSAP256SHA256 27
ED25519 n/a
ED448 n/a
My first reaction was "hmm, that's slow".
Is there a list (above URL isn't it) of comparable results which I could show
the HSM operators and/or is anybody willing to share their data?
Thanks & regards,
-JP
Hi Vladimir,
I appreciate your response and it's great to know you validate by default.
I apologize for posting to the wrong list.
Best,
Henry
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 9:14 AM Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat(a)nic.cz>
wrote:
> Hello.
> On 10/03/2025 17.01, birgelee--- via knot-dns-users wrote:
>
> This ballot requires compliance with RFCs 4035 (specifically an implementation of a "security-aware" resolver as defined in Section 4) and 6840. To the best of my knowledge Knot would be a viable choice for conforming to this ballot particularly since there is a reference to RFCs 4035 in the config documentation and 6840 implements several key features of modern DNSSEC. Given the need for documentable compliance by CAs, a statement of intended support from the Knot team would be extremely helpful.
>
> This is about resolvers apparently, so we're slightly off-topic here, as
> we have a split knot-resolver-users(a)lists.nic.cz - but I expect this
> thread to be very short.
>
> Knot Resolver *does support* modern DNSSEC validation, as described in RFC
> 4035, 6840, and some others. And we validate by default, etc.
>
> --Vladimir
>
Hi all,
I know this topic has been dead for a bit, but I did want to specifically find out if Knot is intended to be compliant with DNSSEC RFCs 4035 and 6840. I ask because I am computer security researcher and I do a lot of work with the CA/Browser Froum. I recently proposed a draft ballot that would mandate all publicly-trusted web CAs validate DNSSEC:
https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/571
This ballot requires compliance with RFCs 4035 (specifically an implementation of a "security-aware" resolver as defined in Section 4) and 6840. To the best of my knowledge Knot would be a viable choice for conforming to this ballot particularly since there is a reference to RFCs 4035 in the config documentation and 6840 implements several key features of modern DNSSEC. Given the need for documentable compliance by CAs, a statement of intended support from the Knot team would be extremely helpful.
Best,
Henry
https://henrybirgelee.com/
is there any guidance on using mod-rrl on a public server with a
moderate load, say 6kqps? we have rtfm, and remain unsure of
what we are doing. we want cookies, and therefore need to turn
rrl on. but with it turned on, we seem to drop a *lot* of
replies, a lot.
mod-rrl:
- id: default
rate-limit: 200
slip: 2
randy
I have static zones that are regenerated continually (every few
seconds) with a knotc zone-reload _zonename_ after.
Doing dig queries using ixfr= always used AXFR until I enabled per-zone
zonefile-load: difference
We saw logs periodically like:
warning: [foo.bar.example.com.] failed to update zone file (operation
not permitted)
This is because the files created are a different user than the knotd.
We are not doing automated signing nor dynamic updates.
This is with Knot 3.2.6.
1) Why would it try writing to the source zone file?
Anyways, we got rid of that warning with
zonefile-sync: -1
And the time to between the zone-reload and serving the new zone data
improved too.
I noticed with experimenting with journal-db-max-size and
journal-max-size the data.mdb was around 80% larger than the defined
size. As I removed and added records, the number of differences reduced
and I couldn't do IXFRs for many versions behind which I assume is
default journal-max-depth: 20. I believe this means the journaling was
dropping versions and does not require keeping at least 20 versions (not
a "minimum". I am fine with that.
I was able to trigger error like
error: [foo.bar.example.com.] zone event 'load' failed (not enough
space provided)
which I assume was due to journaling even when dropping old versions
still doesn't have enough space for most recent changes.
We are experimenting with increasing journal-max-size to work around
this.
It appears that the differences are fully handled in memory first before
updating to the journal file. I also see the journal file have large
jump in file size and never small increments.
2) Since I have no purpose to reuse a journal file for system restart or
recovery -- since I am building new zone files frequently, is there any
way to not use a journal file and just have knotd do this all in memory?
That way it is never writing to the journal every few seconds while I
continue to offer IXFR out support?
If not, maybe I will use memory file system for the journal files.
By the way, this is for around ten zones varying from around 1000
records to over 8 million records for the larger zones, They are
changing from a few records every few seconds to maybe a thousand
records every 30 seconds.
Thanks
