From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 28 17:16:21 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DCBAC67 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:16:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from salin.laurent@laposte.net) Received: from smtpout.laposte.net (smtpout6.laposte.net [193.253.67.231]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C7EB276E for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:16:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.76.1] ([62.147.142.218]) by mwinf8511-out with ME id WhGJ1m00F4ivp8E03hGJg8; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:16:18 +0200 Message-ID: <52470EE1.5060004@laposte.net> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:16:17 +0200 From: Laurent SALIN User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130824 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to ask a DNS resolver listening on a different port than the tcp/udp 53 References: <5245CC59.5060204@laposte.net> <524600CF.3040609@fjl.co.uk> <13463C66-C15D-48E0-B926-CA0BF6580CAD@elde.net> <524610BE.4020904@fjl.co.uk> <5246DEB3.7090002@fjl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:16:21 -0000 Le 28.09.2013 18:32, Terje Elde a écrit : > Not sure if I misunderstood what you're trying to do, but the way I recall it, you have two boxes, one running with one recursive and one authoritative nameserver, and you wanted a second box to quey the recursive nameserver on the first box, which is running on another port than 53? You just right > Given your setup, that's a valid question. that's why I submit it to the FreeBSD-Question list :-) > It's getting down to patching the resolver I felt was a bit overkill, and a possible source of future pain. > > How to solve it is a perfectly valid question. I was hoping it'll be possible to map destination port with Packet Filter from nameserver:53 to nameserver:5353 for exemple. > Personally I'd just think it cleaner to solve it by running a caching resolver on the second host (on port 53), that could forward queries where you'd like, rather than patching or usik firewall redirects. I guess that's how I'll fix my problem Thanks, Laurent SALIN