Root DNS Server Issues?
John M. Brown
john at chagresventures.com
Wed Oct 2 00:20:02 UTC 2002
Don't worry about being a DNS clunkhead. Though some on this list
will banish you for trying to learn.
The root servers are non-recursive. Otherwords they only
answer for what they know.
WHat you are asking for is a server to be recursive in its
answer to your query. This is what a ISP"s server will do.
What OS is your DNS server running ?
If its a Unix version, then I could help via the phone if you
would like. write me back privately with contact data.
John Brown
Le Geek
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 08:07:57PM -0400, John Neiberger wrote:
> Forgive me for being a DNS clunkhead. <g> I honestly don't
> know much about it, but I thought I'd post this to the list
> because it did appear to be a problem with the root servers,
> which would be A Bad Thing (tm).
>
> Probable dumb question: if I do an nslookup from a desktop
> directed at a root server, should the name eventually resolve?
> Or, is a request to a root server from our DNS server a
> different kind of request? I have a feeling it is and that I'm
> barking up the wrong tree.
>
> That might explain why an nslookup directed at someone else's
> name server is working.
>
> Still, that would lead us back to the original problem. Our
> DNS server can't communicate with the root servers. Hmm..
>
> Again, I apologize for being a total noob at this. I believe
> that I'm misunderstanding the symptoms and using the wrong
> tools to troubleshoot!
>
> Thanks to all,
> John
>
> ---- On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, John M. Brown
> (john at chagresventures.com) wrote:
>
> > Root servers don't resolve names other than the TLD's.
> >
> > OTW they don't have data for www.yahoo.com only for .com
> > which will point you towards the gTLD servers (listed below)
> > which will point you towards Yahoo's name servers.
> >
> > What names are you trying to lookup ?
> >
> > John Brown
> > Le Geek
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 07:46:00PM -0400, John Neiberger
> wrote:
> > > We're getting responses from the root servers, the names
> just
> > > aren't resolving. From a windows NT machine the error
> is "Non-
> > > existent Domain".
> > >
> > > Ah, I just noticed something. The packet length for the
> DNS
> > > response is supposed to be 510 bytes but it's being
> truncated
> > > to 128. What the heck would cause that??
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > ---- On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, John M. Brown
> > > (john at chagresventures.com) wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here is for L, F also seems to reply. Tested from 8
> different
> > > > places on the net. OTW Transit splay on the test was 8
> > > different
> > > > providers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you give a sample of the "errors" you are seeing?
> > > >
> > > > Got a sample DIG line ??
> > > >
> > > > John Brown
> > > > Le Geek
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > %dig @l.root-servers.net com ns
> > > >
> > > > ; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> @l.root-servers.net com ns
> > > > ; (1 server found)
> > > > ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
> > > > ;; got answer:
> > > > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6
> > > > ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 13, AUTHORITY: 0,
> > > ADDITIONAL: 13
> > > > ;; QUERY SECTION:
> > > > ;; com, type = NS, class = IN
> > > >
> > > > ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> > > > com. 2D IN NS L.GTLD-
> SERVERS.NET.
> > > > com. 2D IN NS F.GTLD-
> SERVERS.NET.
> > > > com. 2D IN NS J.GTLD-
> SERVERS.NET.
> > > > com. 2D IN NS K.GTLD-
> SERVERS.NET.
> > > > com. 2D IN NS E.GTLD-
> SERVERS.NET.
> > > > com. 2D IN NS M.GTLD-
> SERVERS.NET.
> > > > com. 2D IN NS A.GTLD-
> SERVERS.NET.
> > > > com. 2D IN NS G.GTLD-
> SERVERS.NET.
> > > > com. 2D IN NS H.GTLD-
> SERVERS.NET.
> > > > com. 2D IN NS C.GTLD-
> SERVERS.NET.
> > > > com. 2D IN NS I.GTLD-
> SERVERS.NET.
> > > > com. 2D IN NS B.GTLD-
> SERVERS.NET.
> > > > com. 2D IN NS D.GTLD-
> SERVERS.NET.
> > > >
> > > > ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
> > > > L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.41.162.30
> > > > F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.35.51.30
> > > > J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.48.79.30
> > > > K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.52.178.30
> > > > E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.12.94.30
> > > > M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.55.83.30
> > > > A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.5.6.30
> > > > G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.42.93.30
> > > > H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.54.112.30
> > > > C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.26.92.30
> > > > I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.43.172.30
> > > > B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.33.14.30
> > > > D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 2D IN A 192.31.80.30
> > > >
> > > > ;; Total query time: 89 msec
> > > > ;; FROM: jedi.staff.chagres.net to SERVER: l.root-
> > > servers.net 198.32.64.12
> > > > ;; WHEN: Tue Oct 1 17:29:36 2002
> > > > ;; MSG SIZE sent: 21 rcvd: 453
> > > >
> > > > %
> > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 07:08:37PM -0400, John Neiberger
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We seem to be getting name resolution errors when we
> query
> > > any
> > > > > of the root servers, and this just started a hour or so
> ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone else noticing a problem?
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list