Nice...

Think...  THEN type...  Not both at the same time...  :)

Kev.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Weird name resolution troubles and IPCop 1.3.0


> Next up, can you what does dig show when you try to resolve a name?
>
> Kev.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:27 PM
> Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Weird name resolution troubles and IPCop 1.3.0
>
>
> > Out of curiosity, can you ping the DNS servers when you are recieving
> these
> > errors?
> >
> > kev.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Shawn Grover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:15 AM
> > Subject: RE: (clug-talk) Weird name resolution troubles and IPCop 1.3.0
> >
> >
> > > Well, adding the other name servers to my resolv.conf file didn't
> resolve
> > > the issue.  It appears that I loose name resolution after a period of
> time
> > > (somewhere around 5 - 15 minutes).  I'll do more digging over the next
> few
> > > days.
> > >
> > > Shawn
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Shawn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:52 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: (clug-talk) Weird name resolution troubles and IPCop
1.3.0
> > >
> > >
> > > The RED interface on the IPCop box is using DHCP.  All other
interfaces
> on
> > > my network are static.
> > > I've added the other IP addresses mentioned in the other responses to
my
> > > message, so we'll see how that goes.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the responses.
> > >
> > > Shawn
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kevin Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 9:32 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Weird name resolution troubles and IPCop
1.3.0
> > >
> > >
> > > If you're getting DHCP from IPcop, it will be caching DNS info for
you.
> > So
> > > I'd start by checking that it isn't affected first.
> > >
> > > Next, is the Gentoo box recieving a dhcp address?  Is it also
recieving
> > DNS
> > > from the DHCP server?
> > >
> > > I'd start by hardcoding the address and DNS settings.  If that doesn't
> > work,
> > > then try using a different DNS server (24.71.223.145 is SHAW, and
it'll
> > work
> > > fine for you).
> > >
> > > Kev.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Shawn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "CLUG (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:30 AM
> > > Subject: (clug-talk) Weird name resolution troubles and IPCop 1.3.0
> > >
> > >
> > > > I'm seeing some weird things going on with my network.
> > > >
> > > > I have two computers behind an IPCop firewall.  One of the computers
> is
> > my
> > > > W2K workstation - it has no problems doing name resolution and
> browsing
> > > the
> > > > web.  The other computer is my Gentoo server and it will
periodically
> > > refuse
> > > > to resolve names.  It does this when I'm trying to install packages
> > > > sometimes, or even just trying to ping a remote server.
> > > >
> > > > I've just finished checking and reinstalling the IPCop firewall -
and
> > saw
> > > > the symptoms appear again immediately (ping www.google.ca failed to
> > > > resolve).  However, a few minutes later, it's resolving with no
> > problems.
> > > > The obvious assumption is that my server isn't setup right.  But
I've
> > just
> > > > checked it's hosts file, and resolv.conf file - hosts has entries
for
> my
> > > > local computers, and resolv.conf has entries for my name servers
> (well,
> > > > Telus' servers).  Should I not have my firewall computer in the
> > > resolv.conf
> > > > file?  Would that be the cause of this sort of trouble?  I've also
> > checked
> > > > the default gateway, and it's set correctly.
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone else running IPCop seen the same sort of behaviour?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for any tips.
> > > >
> > > > Shawn
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Reply via email to