Seems Gustin was on the same track... -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Anderson Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:13 PM To: 'CLUG General' Subject: Re: [clug-talk] WinXP Pro stations cannot resolve names on Linux network.
I am thinking that the problem is in the way windows handles what it calls 'single label' non-qualified names. Try adding another record for 'server' on the IPCOP box for 'server.'. Alternatively you could use fully qualified names (*.localdomain) on the IPCOP box and set up DNS suffixes on the Windows boxes. Look here for details: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/cnet/cnc f_imp_absq.mspx?mfr=true -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Carlson Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:31 PM To: CLUG General Subject: Re: [clug-talk] WinXP Pro stations cannot resolve names on Linux network. On 9/16/08, Royce Souther <[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, the domain server is at > 192.168.0.1 and the VoIP server is at 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] with 32 bytes of data: > > Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64 > > Ping statistics for 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 > > Name: asterisk > Address: 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-t o-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] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the Cistra MailScanner and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ 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 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the Cistra MailScanner and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ 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
