On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:24:44AM -0500, Dave Anderson wrote: > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, stan wrote: > > >On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:03:27PM -0500, Dave Anderson wrote: > >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, stan wrote: > >> > >> >On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 05:00:02PM -0500, Dave Anderson wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, stan wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Can anyone xplain this behavior to me? > >> >> > >> >> Without access to your nameservers it's not possible to be sure, but see > >> >> below -- this looks normal to me. > >> >> > >> >> >Given the following resolv.conf file: > >> >> > > >> >> >r...@pm3fw:root# cat /etc/resolv.conf > >> >> >lookup file bind > >> >> >search mcn.chs kapstonepaper.com pm3.charleston.meadwestvaco.com > >> >> >nameserver 127.0.0.1 > >> >> >nameserver 10.209.128.20 > >> >> >nameserver 10.209.128.26 > >> >> >nameserver 10.209.142.158 > >> >> > > >> >> >And: > >> >> > > >> >> >r...@pm3fw:root# nslookup > >> >> >> cvsup > >> >> >Server: 127.0.0.1 > >> >> >Address: 127.0.0.1#53 > >> >> > > >> >> >Non-authoritative answer: > >> >> >Name: cvsup.mcn.chs > >> >> >Address: 10.209.142.151 > >> >> >> 10.209.142.151 > >> >> >Server: 127.0.0.1 > >> >> >Address: 127.0.0.1#53 > >> >> > > >> >> >151.142.209.10.in-addr.arpa name = cvsup.meadwestvaco.com. > >> >> >> exit > >> >> > > >> >> >Why does this happen ? And how? > >> >> > >> >> You apparently have a system with multiple names and a single IP > >> >> address. Both cvsup.mch.chs and cvsup.meadwestvaco.com are assigned > >> >> address 10.209.142.151, but the reverse-lookup entry can't return both > >> >> names. Given the order of domains in your 'search' directive, > >> >> cvsup.mcn.chs is looked up first and so is the name that nslookup > >> >> reports, but cvsup.meadwestvaco.com was chosen as the 'official' name > >> >> for the reverse lookup by whoever set up your DNS. > >> >> > >> >Your analysis is correct, in that thier are multiple names (don't ask > >> >:-(). > >> >I have control of some of the nameservers. They are bind 9 on OpenBSD, can > >> >you clarify what you mean by "offical name" are you talking about a A > >> >entry, as oposed to a CNAME entry? > >> > >> Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referring to the *.in-addr.arpa 'PTR' DNS > >> entry which provides the translation from IPv4 address to host name. > > > >K, I am starting to understand this now, thequestion is how to fix it. I do > >have a PTR record in my 10.in-addr.arpa db. If I wan this NOT to be the > >authortative entry for this IP -> name tarnsaltion, so that an authortative > >eoll 'pass on by" this Bind instnace and go on to one further down, how can > >I acomplis htis? > > If I'm understanding you correctly, you can't. The only control which I > recall offhand that you have over whether a nameserver responds with > data from its cache is to set the 'authoritative' flag in your request, > which will cause a nameserver with only cached data to pass the request > on -- but you don't want to do this routinely since it defeats the > distributed nature of DNS and so results in overloading the > authoritative servers. > > All that the 'authoritative' flag tells you is whether the response came > from a server with the entry in its cache (not authoritative) or from > one which has that information manually configured on it > (authoritative) -- so I'm not at all sure what you mean by 'fix it'. > > What exactly is the behavior that you want? > I would like to have all programs get the same results as nslookup, that is get *.mcn.chs for the reverese lookup from this machine. I have other machines configureddiferently in resolv.conf that I want to get the *.meadwestvaco.com resolution. This has been a long a painful taril, and I thoguht I had what I wanted based upon using nslookup as a test. When I saw diffeent software (nmap in this case) getting diferent resolutin, it was verry disapointiing.
-- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
