Re: Different handling of referrals by dig and nslookup

On 2/21/2010 8:25 PM, Doug Barton wrote: On 02/20/10 08:54, kalpesh varyani wrote: Thanks Dave for pointing this out. the first server did not fail, it behaved as per its configuration. But for a stub resolver, which cannot follow referrals, isnt it logical for it to detect referrals and mo

Re: Different handling of referrals by dig and nslookup

On 02/20/10 08:54, kalpesh varyani wrote: > Thanks Dave for pointing this out. > > the first server did not fail, it behaved as per its configuration. > But for a stub resolver, which cannot follow referrals, isnt it logical > for it to detect referrals and move on to the next name server in the

Re: Different handling of referrals by dig and nslookup

In message , kalpe sh varyani writes: > Hi Doug, > > Please find my response inline. > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Doug Barton wrote: > > > On 02/13/10 18:42, kalpesh varyani wrote: > > > >> Hi Rick, > >> > >> I am aware that it is a somewhat odd (but not incorrect, am I right ?) > >

Re: Different handling of referrals by dig and nslookup

On 02/20/10 08:51, kalpesh varyani wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Doug Barton > wrote: > > On 02/13/10 18:42, kalpesh varyani wrote: > > What is it that you want to understand? You seem quite focused on > figuring out why they are behaving differ

Re: Different handling of referrals by dig and nslookup

Thanks Dave for pointing this out. the first server did not fail, it behaved as per its configuration. But for a stub resolver, which cannot follow referrals, isnt it logical for it to detect referrals and move on to the next name server in the list? Regards, Kalpesh On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:5

Re: Different handling of referrals by dig and nslookup

Hi Doug, Please find my response inline. On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 02/13/10 18:42, kalpesh varyani wrote: > >> Hi Rick, >> >> I am aware that it is a somewhat odd (but not incorrect, am I right ?) >> to put a non-recursive name server in the resolv.conf >> > > Th

Re: Different handling of referrals by dig and nslookup

On 2/13/2010 9:42 PM, kalpesh varyani wrote: Hi Rick, I am aware that it is a somewhat odd (but not incorrect, am I right ?) to put a non-recursive name server in the resolv.conf but I am not able to understand the behavioral difference of ping/dig and nslookup. But logically shouldn't it be

Re: Different handling of referrals by dig and nslookup

On 02/13/10 18:42, kalpesh varyani wrote: Hi Rick, I am aware that it is a somewhat odd (but not incorrect, am I right ?) to put a non-recursive name server in the resolv.conf There are certain very specific circumstances where you might want to do this, but in general I can't see any reason

Re: Different handling of referrals by dig and nslookup

Hi Rick, I am aware that it is a somewhat odd (but not incorrect, am I right ?) to put a non-recursive name server in the resolv.conf but I am not able to understand the behavioral difference of ping/dig and nslookup. But logically shouldn't it be moving to the next name server when the first one

Re: Different handling of referrals by dig and nslookup

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:07 PM, kalpesh varyani wrote: > From a third linux system, I try name resolution using dig or nslookup. > In this system, I have resolv.conf as: > > nameserver A > nameserver B Just out of curiosity, why do you have a non recursing name server in resolv.conf? -- aRDy

Different handling of referrals by dig and nslookup

Hi all, I have named 9.4.3-P3 running on 2 linux systems(A & B). A has recursion disabled and the B has recursion enabled. >From a third linux system, I try name resolution using dig or nslookup. In this system, I have resolv.conf as: nameserver A nameserver B When I try to resolve names, using