10.0.0.13 is indeed up. Otherwise named could not bind to it as shown by sockstat. Certainly a valid thing to test Will, thanks.
At 10:42 PM 4/17/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Look outside. Chain of reasoning below. > >This is really silly, but did you do an ifconfig or the BSD equivalent to >make sure 10.0.0.13 was up? Yeah, I see that telnet believes that there >is such a machine and there very well might be. Hmmm, I can ping that one >myself though I'm only running 192.168.x.x here. The same machine refuses >to telnet. Ah yes, disconnect Cox and no ping from 10.0.0.13. I sense a >disturbance in the network rather than the source. > >On 2003.04.17 20:04 Dustin Puryear wrote: > > > > > Here is the error: > > > > $ nslookup - 10.0.0.13 > > *** Can't find server name for address 10.0.0.13: No response from server > > *** Default servers are not available > > > > And yes, named is running: > > > > # ps -ax | grep named > > 94672 ?? Ss 0:00.05 usr/sbin/named -u bind -g bind -t > /usr/jail/named > > -b etc/namedb/named.conf > > # sockstat -l4 | grep named > > bind named 96805 20 udp4 10.0.0.13:53 *:* > > bind named 96805 21 tcp4 10.0.0.13:53 *:* > > # telnet 10.0.0.13 53 > > Trying 10.0.0.13... > > Connected to 10.0.0.13. > > Escape character is '^]'. > > ^] > > telnet> quit > > Connection closed. > > > > Also, if I set /etc/resolv.conf to use 10.0.0.13 then most services that > > depend on name resolution begin to fail. > >_______________________________________________ >General mailing list >[email protected] >http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net --- Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Puryear Information Technology Windows, UNIX, and IT Consulting http://www.puryear-it.com
