Kevin, Thanks for your explanation, yarnandwaste.com cannot be resolved, below is dig +trace result: [r...@ns2 ~]# dig yarnandwaste.com +trace
; <<>> DiG 9.4.2 <<>> yarnandwaste.com +trace ;; global options: printcmd . 437569 IN NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 437569 IN NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 437569 IN NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 437569 IN NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 437569 IN NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 437569 IN NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 437569 IN NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 437569 IN NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 437569 IN NS J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 437569 IN NS K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 437569 IN NS L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 437569 IN NS M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 437569 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;; Received 500 bytes from xx.xx.xx.xx #53(xx.xx.xx.xx) in 0 ms com. 172800 IN NS F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; Received 506 bytes from 198.41.0.4#53(A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) in 158 ms yarnandwaste.com. 172800 IN NS maa.durgamatamandir.com. yarnandwaste.com. 172800 IN NS mata.durgamatamandir.com. ;; Received 119 bytes from 192.42.93.30#53(G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET) in 225 ms ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached Does that mean it's a connectivity problem? Also another issue is with gegreklam.com which have different results when dig +trace and without +trace, kindly check below results: - without +trace [r...@ns2 ~]# dig gegreklam.com ; <<>> DiG 9.4.2 <<>> gegreklam.com ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2418 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;gegreklam.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: gegreklam.com. 13940 IN A 208.43.100.50 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: gegreklam.com. 85940 IN NS dns4.rawshen.com. gegreklam.com. 85940 IN NS dns3.rawshen.com. ;; Query time: 0 msec ;; SERVER: xx.xx.xx.xx#53(xx.xx.xx.xx) ;; WHEN: Thu Oct 29 08:07:01 2009 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 93 - with +trace [r...@ns2 ~]# dig gegreklam.com +trace ; <<>> DiG 9.4.2 <<>> gegreklam.com +trace ;; global options: printcmd . 436613 IN NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 436613 IN NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 436613 IN NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 436613 IN NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 436613 IN NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 436613 IN NS J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 436613 IN NS K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 436613 IN NS L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 436613 IN NS M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 436613 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 436613 IN NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 436613 IN NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 436613 IN NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;; Received 500 bytes from xx.xx.xx.xx #53(xx.xx.xx.xx) in 0 ms com. 172800 IN NS H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; Received 491 bytes from 192.5.5.241#53(F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) in 85 ms gegreklam.com. 172800 IN NS ml1.dhksoft.com. gegreklam.com. 172800 IN NS ml2.dhksoft.com. ;; Received 107 bytes from 192.26.92.30#53(C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET) in 158 ms dig: couldn't get address for 'ml2.dhksoft.com': not found I guess this was your point by "starting with no cache" since it gives us 2 different NS results, right? Best regards, Alans -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kevin Darcy Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Reasons for not resolving Alans, Why would you use Google to determine whether a web site is up or not? It's not even clear to me that you're having a DNS problem. It's rather bad practice to have lots of reverse-records in the DNS for a given address (e.g. 96.31.75.113), and can even cause problems with oversized responses to reverse lookups being dropped by firewalls, but it shouldn't cause any *forward* (name-to-address) lookups to fail. Can you resolve a name like yarnandwaste.com or can't you? Please follow normal diagnostic procedures and try to determine what actual problem you are having. "Can't ping or browse" is only the start of the diagnostic process, and might not be caused by DNS at all. Once you've determined that you can't resolve a particular name, then something you might try is a "dig +trace" on the name, from your nameserver. That will show you the sequence of queries that will be followed by a resolver to try and resolve the name, and might help pinpoint the source of the problem. It will not, however, exactly match what your nameserver is doing unless you have a completely "vanilla", iterative-resolving configuration (i.e. Internet root hints and nothing else). If you have other elements of your config that affect resolution, e.g. zones of type stub/forward/master/slave anywhere in the hierarchy of the name you're looking up, or "forwarders" in your "options" clause, then "dig +trace" won't know about those "specials" and can't match exactly what your nameserver would do. Also, it's possible that your nameserver has cached data that might cause it to resolve differently than "dig +trace", which always starts with no cache at all. - Kevin Alans wrote: > > I looked more and I figure out that we can't ping or browse any of > these hosts http://www.ip-adress.com/reverse_ip/96.31.75.113 (they all > are on one IP) it's confusing because when I search in google for host > names it appears in the result which means it's not down fir > everyone!! Any ideas? > > Kind regards, > > Alans > > *From:* [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Alans > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:47 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Reasons for not resolving > > Hello, > > There are few websites that our DNS (BIND 9.4.2 on CentOS 5) is not > resolving while others like 4.2.2.2 does, I wonder what could be the > reasons for this? > > Regards, > > Alans > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > bind-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
