Bind9 configuration - dns

Question

I can't understand why my dns server won't work.
i get this, when i testing with "dig"
; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> connectioon.eu
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 54973
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;connectioon.eu. IN A
;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.1.33#53(192.168.1.33)
;; WHEN: Fri Dec 9 20:14:07 2011
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 32
named.conf.local:
zone "connectioon.eu" {
type master;
file "/etc/bind/zones/connectioon.eu";
};
zone "21.100.91.in-addr.arpa" {
type master;
file "/etc/bind/zones/192.168.1";
};
I have tried with:
zone "1.168.192.in-addr.arpa" {
type master;
file "/etc/bind/zones/192.168.1";
};
and
zone "192.168.1.in-addr.arpa" {
type master;
file "/etc/bind/zones/192.168.1";
};
the connectioon.eu conf file:
; BIND data file for local loopback interface
;
$TTL 604800
# IN SOA connectioon.eu. voice12345678910.hotmail.com. (
09122011180545 ; Serial
604800 ; Refresh
86400 ; Retry
2419200 ; Expire
604800 ) ; Negative Cache TTL
;
# IN NS connectioon.eu.
# IN 91.100.21.28
the 192.168.1 file:
;
; BIND data file for local loopback interface
;
$TTL 604800
# IN SOA connectioon.eu. voice12345678910.hotmail.com. (
09122011184553 ; Serial
604800 ; Refresh
86400 ; Retry
2419200 ; Expire
604800 ) ; Negative Cache TTL
;
NS connectioon.eu.
28 PTR connectioon.eu.
my public ip is: 91.100.21.28 and local ip to dns: 192.168.1.33
ps. i using bind9 on ubuntu 11.04

Answer 1

This command :
dig connectioon.eu #91.100.21.28
shows
; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> connectioon.eu #91.100.21.28
;; global options: +cmd
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
Are you sure a name server is listening on port 53 (and is not restricted to local requests) ?
I assume 91.100.21.28 is where your DNS server is meant to be.
(edit: Actually a quick dig connectioon.eu +norecurse #x.nic.eu shows that the primary NS is 91.100.21.28.hostname-generic.arrownet.dk which resolves to 91.100.21.28)
PS: +1 for ziesemer's serverfault-related comment