-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 No DNS suffix, windows will not be able to do name lookups. This is the short short answer. See my previous email for some suggestions that I have.
Royce Souther wrote: > Yes nslookup is outdated but Windows does not have dig. Here is the > output of ipconfig > > C:\Documents and Settings\user>ipconfig /all > > Windows IP Configuration > > Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : xplaptop > Primary Dns Suffix . . . . . . . : > Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Unknown > IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No > WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No > > Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection: > > Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : > Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Realtek RTL8139/810X Family > Fast Ethernet NIC > Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-40-D0-25-33-73 > Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes > Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.9 <http://192.168.0.9> > Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 > <http://255.255.255.0> > Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.254 > <http://192.168.0.254> > DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1 <http://192.168.0.1> > DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.254 > <http://192.168.0.254> > Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : Tuesday, September 16, 2008 > 2:33:21 PM > Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : Tuesday, September 16, 2008 > 8:33:21 PM > > C:\Documents and Settings\user> > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Mark Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > On 9/16/08, Royce Souther <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > I have a school with a few hundred WinXP Pro systems. They are all > on a > > Samba domain controlled server for authentication and home > directories. It > > works great except for some reason some names will not resolve. I > am using > > IPcop to set hostnames for static systems on the network. IPcop is > the DNS > > server for the network. If IPcop knows the name and IP of a local > system it > > will resolve that IP. All the Linux workstations resolve all names > correctly > > but it seems like Windows will not resolve a hostname unless there > is a > > Samba server running on it. That is really stupid and what I would > expect > > from Microsoft but not helpfull at all. I have servers that > privoleged staff > > need to access from WinXP via Firefox and don't know squat about > Windows so > > I would like if someone could help me figure out what is wrong > with it, all > > joking aside. > > > > As you can see below, server can be pinged but the asterisk > server cannot > > even though nslookup says it can resolve the IP. WTFIUWT! Both > servers are > > listed in IPcop. IPcop is at 192.168.0.254 <http://192.168.0.254>, > the domain server is at > > 192.168.0.1 <http://192.168.0.1> and the VoIP server is at > 192.168.0.253 <http://192.168.0.253>. A special user has a > > static IP with a system called mobius running Ubuntu and Samba, it > is also > > listed in IPcop and can be pinged by name, it is not a domain > server just a > > simple file share. I looks like Windoze can only resolve LAN names > if the > > system is running Samba. Do I need to setup the domain server to > resolve LAN > > names over Samba protocol? > > > > C:\Documents and Settings\user>ping server > > Pinging server [192.168.0.1 <http://192.168.0.1>] with 32 bytes > of data: > > > > Reply from 192.168.0.1 <http://192.168.0.1>: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 > > Reply from 192.168.0.1 <http://192.168.0.1>: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 > > > > Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1 <http://192.168.0.1>: > > Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss), > > Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: > > Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms > > C:\Documents and Settings\user>ping asterisk > > Ping request could not find host asterisk. Please check the name > and try > > again. > > > > C:\Documents and Settings\user>nslookup asterisk > > Server: ipcop.localdomain > > Address: 192.168.0.254 <http://192.168.0.254> > > > > Name: asterisk > > Address: 192.168.0.253 <http://192.168.0.253> > > > Although not entirely helpful, these two pages may give you some > insight: > > http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/nslookup-results-different-to-ping.html > http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/nslookup-flaws.html > > To quote the second page: > "nslookup is a badly flawed tool. Don't use it." > > Apparently it is too much to ask for to get the same result from ping > and nslookup since nslookup may have a completely different way of > querying the nameserver than ping does. > > Also, the output of: > # ipconfig /all > may be useful. > > -Mark C. > > _______________________________________________ > clug-talk mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca > Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) > **Please remove these lines when replying > > > > > -- > http://www.Radados.org > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > clug-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca > Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) > **Please remove these lines when replying -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI0B7LwRXgH3rKGfMRAjJgAJ9ZnuXI/chXNPV4RXW17lW1sVlIgQCfeEad wVsujKS63kbA8RvnLNv2OXc= =BM98 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
