RE: nslookup strangeness
Hi - thanks for the reply. The host in question runs named because it is also a secondary name server for the domains Safeport hosts. I also use it as the name server for our internal network. The error is that nslookup terminates after the message and that I apparently changed something as this as been this way for years. What I was looking for is some other log/file that might give an indication of why the server will not answer the IPV4 query sent on 192.168.3.1. On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Ruben Bloemgarten wrote: Hi Douglas, If you are using dns relay on your gateway why would you want to use named ? Also, it might be an idea to put the dns server ( i.e. the gateway) in your resolv.conf. Furthermore, neither your hosts ip4 ip (192.168.3.1) nor your non existant ip6 ip (:::) should be able to be resolved, unless you've set this up specifically yourself. In short, your 'error' message is more message than error. Regards, Ruben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 20, 2005 6:37 PM To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: nslookup strangeness I was using nslookup because of its convenient syntax to do some stuff. My workstation communicates via a gateway which also severs as its name server. I get the following: nslookup *** Can't find server name for address 192.168.3.1: Non-existent host/domain *** Can't find server name for address ::: No response from server *** Default servers are not available However dig works fine as does regular use of DNS. /etc/resolv.conf: nameserver 192.168.3.1 I started and stopped named and was able to use nslookup for a while. My question for the list is where I might look to find an indication of the error. there is nothing in /var/log/messages or all.log. Sockstat shows named listening on 192.168.3.1. Except for an occasional abnormally long response using ssh DNS also works normally. Thanks for any ideas. _ Douglas Denault http://www.safeport.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 301-469-8766 Fax: 301-469-0601 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/207 - Release Date: 12/19/2005 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/207 - Release Date: 12/19/2005 _ Douglas Denault http://www.safeport.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 301-469-8766 Fax: 301-469-0601 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: nslookup strangeness
Hi Douglas, If you are using dns relay on your gateway why would you want to use named ? Also, it might be an idea to put the dns server ( i.e. the gateway) in your resolv.conf. Furthermore, neither your hosts ip4 ip (192.168.3.1) nor your non existant ip6 ip (:::) should be able to be resolved, unless you've set this up specifically yourself. In short, your 'error' message is more message than error. Regards, Ruben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 20, 2005 6:37 PM To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: nslookup strangeness I was using nslookup because of its convenient syntax to do some stuff. My workstation communicates via a gateway which also severs as its name server. I get the following: nslookup *** Can't find server name for address 192.168.3.1: Non-existent host/domain *** Can't find server name for address ::: No response from server *** Default servers are not available However dig works fine as does regular use of DNS. /etc/resolv.conf: nameserver 192.168.3.1 I started and stopped named and was able to use nslookup for a while. My question for the list is where I might look to find an indication of the error. there is nothing in /var/log/messages or all.log. Sockstat shows named listening on 192.168.3.1. Except for an occasional abnormally long response using ssh DNS also works normally. Thanks for any ideas. _ Douglas Denault http://www.safeport.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 301-469-8766 Fax: 301-469-0601 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/207 - Release Date: 12/19/2005 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/207 - Release Date: 12/19/2005 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nslookup not working on client machines only
David Jenkins wrote:
On Wed, 24 November, 2004 0:47, Nicolas said:
Hello,
I've set up a FreeBSD box to provide my home network a NAT access to
the
Internet and a DNS caching-only server with bind 8.3.7 (among other
things).
It's working perfectly but today I noticed something that I do not
understand. When trying to $ nslookup google.com on a client host,
here's what it says :
8--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] nslookup google.com
*** Can't find server name for address 192.168.0.1: Non-existent
host/domain
*** Can't find server name for address ::: No response from server
*** Default servers are not available
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--8
Now, trying the same thing directly on the DNS box :
8--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] nslookup google.com
Server: 192.168.0.1
Address:192.168.0.1#53
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: google.com
Address: 216.239.57.99
Name: google.com
Address: 216.239.37.99
Name: google.com
Address: 216.239.39.99
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--8
The resolv.conf files are the same on the 2 boxes :
8--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cat /etc/resolv.conf
search serpe.org
nameserver 192.168.0.1
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cat /etc/resolv.conf
search serpe.org
nameserver 192.168.0.1
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--8
Given this, I do not understand why it works on the DNS box and not on
the client.
I believe this might mean you don't have reverse DNS setup on your
server for you local network.
i.e. when you use nslookup it tries finding out the corresponding
hostname for it's own IP address. So if you have an IP address of
192.168.0.100 on the box that is having trouble with nslookup, you
will need to define what hostname that IP address map's to on your DNS
server.
You need to have the following in named.conf and the corresponding
zone file
zone 0.168.192.in-addr.arpa {
type master;
file localnetwork.rev;
};
which defines your home network and their IP address etc ...
Hope this helps.
David
PS - dig doesn't suffer from those problems AFAIK, so you may be
better of using dig.
Thank you for your reply.
I understand that adding a reverse dns zone may solve this problem, but
I don't understand why nslookup doesn't output the error when used on
the dns box itself.
It's the same process that is used, it should be the same error ?
What am I missing here ?
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nslookup not working on client machines only
On Wed, 24 November, 2004 0:47, Nicolas said:
Hello,
I've set up a FreeBSD box to provide my home network a NAT access to
the
Internet and a DNS caching-only server with bind 8.3.7 (among other
things).
It's working perfectly but today I noticed something that I do not
understand. When trying to $ nslookup google.com on a client host,
here's what it says :
8--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] nslookup google.com
*** Can't find server name for address 192.168.0.1: Non-existent
host/domain
*** Can't find server name for address ::: No response from server
*** Default servers are not available
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--8
Now, trying the same thing directly on the DNS box :
8--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] nslookup google.com
Server: 192.168.0.1
Address:192.168.0.1#53
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: google.com
Address: 216.239.57.99
Name: google.com
Address: 216.239.37.99
Name: google.com
Address: 216.239.39.99
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--8
The resolv.conf files are the same on the 2 boxes :
8--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cat /etc/resolv.conf
search serpe.org
nameserver 192.168.0.1
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cat /etc/resolv.conf
search serpe.org
nameserver 192.168.0.1
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--8
Given this, I do not understand why it works on the DNS box and not on
the client.
I believe this might mean you don't have reverse DNS setup on your
server for you local network.
i.e. when you use nslookup it tries finding out the corresponding
hostname for it's own IP address. So if you have an IP address of
192.168.0.100 on the box that is having trouble with nslookup, you
will need to define what hostname that IP address map's to on your DNS
server.
You need to have the following in named.conf and the corresponding
zone file
zone 0.168.192.in-addr.arpa {
type master;
file localnetwork.rev;
};
which defines your home network and their IP address etc ...
Hope this helps.
David
PS - dig doesn't suffer from those problems AFAIK, so you may be
better of using dig.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nslookup
Brian Henning wrote: is there a bsd tool that gives the domain name of an IP address? host? nslookup? -ste ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nslookup
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 08:56:29AM -0500, Brian Henning wrote: is there a bsd tool that gives the domain name of an IP address? I know this will give me an ip of one of the google web servers. traceroute www.google.com dig -x 12.34.56.78 - or - host 12.34.56.78 Note that rather fewer machines have a correctly registered reverse mapping than should really be the case. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: nslookup
At 2004-04-15T13:58:52Z, Shaun T. Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: nslookup? Don't use nslookup. It's a Bad Thing. -- Kirk Strauser 94 outdated ports on the box, 94 outdated ports. Portupgrade one, an hour 'til done, 82 outdated ports on the box. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: nslookup
At 2004-04-15T13:58:52Z, Shaun T. Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: nslookup? Don't use nslookup. It's a Bad Thing. I haven't heard that there is any specific evil involved, just that somewhere in the high court of those who pass judgement on such things, it has been decided to phase out nslookup in favor of new utilities. Actually, I am a little sorry because nslookup puts out a nice basic piece of information and is easy to use. dig seems to fill the screen with stuff I have to squint at and visually sort through to find the tidbit of information I want. Probably some more use of arguments might narrow stuff down a little, I suppose, but... Also, nslookup let me start it up and do some checks using my primary DBS and then set server to something and stay that way while I did a bunch of checking and then set it to another server to do some more checking, all without having to re-enter the command line stuff. That is handy. I notice some desirable features of dig too, but I liked that simple convenience in nslookup. jerry Kirk Strauser 94 outdated ports on the box, 94 outdated ports. Portupgrade one, an hour 'til done, 82 outdated ports on the box. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBAfsuO5sRg+Y0CpvERAp5tAJ0fPgDZW96CenS5zmi5xkdOF0PkBwCeIWcO cKAE5fKIOyGECkfUKyArv14= =lH0l -END PGP SIGNATURE- --=-=-=-- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nslookup
At 2004-04-15T18:35:47Z, Jerry McAllister [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I haven't heard that there is any specific evil involved, just that somewhere in the high court of those who pass judgement on such things, it has been decided to phase out nslookup in favor of new utilities. Nope. nslookup is inherently flawed is that its results don't necessarily reflect the results that the rest of your system may be getting. For more information, Google of nslookup is bad. For example: http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/nslookup-daft-error-message.html -- Kirk Strauser pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: nslookup
* Kirk Strauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-04-15 10:56]: At 2004-04-15T13:58:52Z, Shaun T. Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: nslookup? Don't use nslookup. It's a Bad Thing. I really don't want to hijack this thread, but you've peaked my curiosity; can you elaborate? -- Joshua Is truth not truth for all? -- Natira, For the World is Hollow and I have Touched the Sky, stardate 5476.4. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nslookup and reverse lookup failure of nameserver under 5.2-RELEASE
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:13:06AM -0800, Matthew Fremont wrote: The nameserver is working properly, and commands like dig(1), host(1), telnet(1), and ftp(1), are able to sucessfully resolve names. The problem appears to be isolated to nslookup(8). If memory serves me correctly, at some time in the past nslookup handled a reverse lookup failure of the server more gracefully, identifying the server as Unknown, and continuing with the query. As I recall, this quirk of nslookup(8) was one of the reasons why the BIND project has deprecated it in favour of the better behaved tools like dig(1) and host(1). If you used a version of nslookup(8) that didn't have this problem, then it must have been specially patched to do so. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
