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 to do this, and would not
recommend it.
but I am not able
to understand the behavioral difference of ping/dig and nslookup.
What is it that you want to understand? You seem quite focused on
figuring out why they are behaving differently, is there some reason why
you need to put a non-resolving name server in resolv.conf?
But logically shouldn't it be moving to the next name server when the
first one fails even in the case of ping and dig. This is what, I think,
one would expect from a resolver.
dig is a DNS diagnostic tool. You asked for an answer, you got an
answer. The fact that it didn't move on is not a mystery. nslookup is
designed to get its answers from the system resolver, so the real
question is, why did ping and nslookup behave differently? But that's
really a question for your linux distro.
Good luck,
Doug
--
... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
