Hm, your problem sounds unique, but check this registry hack out, and see if it solves your problme
http://www.speedguide.net/Cable_modems/cable_reg_xp.shtml Windows 2000/XP has built-in DNS (Domain Name System) caching, which basically caches resolved hostnames for faster access and reduced DNS lookups. This is generally a great feature, with the only downside that failed DNS lookups get cached by default as well... When a DNS lookup fails (due to temporary DNS problems), Windows still caches the unsuccessful DNS query, and in turn fails to connect to a host regardless of the fact that the DNS server might be able to handle your lookup seconds later. There are a couple of different ways to tweak Windows 2k/XP not to cache failed DNS lookups: 1. You can flush the DNS cache manually, by going to Command Prompt and typing: ipconfig /flushdns 2. You can wait for the cached lookup to expire or reboot the system... Or you can permanently solve this issue by tweaking a few Registry entries. You can simply use the patch below to modify your Registry: winxp_dnscache.reg - patch Windows 2k/XP not to cache failed DNS entries. To install, save to your HD and double-click the filename. winxp_dnscache_undo.inf - patch to reverse all changes made by winxp_dnscache.reg. To install, save to your HD, then right-click on the filename and chose "install" from the pull-down menu. If you'd rather do the changes manually, and assuming you feel comfortable editing the Windows Registry, here are the related Registry entries (recommended values are highlighted in red): [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Dnscache\Parameter s] NegativeCacheTime=0 (DWORD, default value: 0x12C (300 seconds), range: 0x0-0xFFFFFFFF seconds) Description: Determines how long an entry recording a negative answer to a query remains in the DNS cache. When the time specified in the value of this entry expires, the DNS client deletes the answer record from cache. NetFailureCacheTime=0 (DWORD, default value: 0x1E (30 seconds), range: 0x0-0xFFFFFFFF seconds) Description: Determines for how long the DNS client stops sending queries when it suspects that the network is down. When the DNS client does not receive responses to repeated queries sent to any network adapter, the DNS client stops sending queries for the time specified in the value of this entry. During that time, the DNS client returns a timeout response to all queries. If the value of this entry is 0x0, this optimizing feature is disabled. DNS continues to send queries to an unresponsive network. NegativeSOACacheTime=0 (DWORD. default value: 0x78 (120 secnds), range: 0x0-0xFFFFFFFF seconds) Description: Determines how long an entry recording a negative answer to a query for an SOA (Start of Authority) record remains in the Domain Name System (DNS) cache. When the time specified in the value expires, the DNS client deletes the answer record from the cache. Note: As always when editing the Registry, a backup is a good idea, and reboot might be required for changes to take effect. Related Articles: MS TechNet - DNS Caching, Network Prioritization and Security TechTV - Kill DNS Errors for Faster Broadband Microsoft - DNS Resolver Cache Service > -----Original Message----- > From: Kory Krofft [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 00:39 > To: Mike Hahn > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [leaf-user] Win2K DNS Problem. > > > Mike, > I tried both netmon and ethereal on the win2k box. I do not > have tcpdump on the leaf system. Neither showed anything at > all while the delay was ocurring and showed normal entries > once the connections were resolved. It seems to affect > Netscape far more than IE. Perhaps this is M$ way of > shutting them out. I could upgrade from Netscape 4.78 to a > newer version but I like the multiple user profiles that 4.78 > and earlier had which were > removed in the 6.0 and beyond. > > Thanks for the suggestions. > > Kory Krofft > > Mike Hahn wrote: > > > > You may try running a netmon or ethereal trace to see > exactly what is > > going on with your DNS requests. > > > > I have seen weirdness in the way the w2k dns client handles name > > resolution. Nothing on the order of 3-4 minute delays, but delays > > nonetheless. Most of the problems I have seen revolve > around the dns > > client "assuming" that the dns server would (by default) be a win2k > > Active Directory DNS server, hence querying the dns for AD specific > > dns structures. > > > > Perhaps running a tcpdump on your leaf will yield results > as well. If > > the dnscache is trying to relay the funky win2k dns lookups to the > > internet, you could incur a delay. > > > > This is, of course, 100% speculation mixed with a bit of > ignorance for > > good measure. > > > > Mike > > > > Kory Krofft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Lynn, > > > > > > Thanks for weighing in on this. Unchecking the autodetect had no > > > effect. it seems some URLs are not a problem so I am > getting used to > > > checking my mail pop prior to browsing and by the time I > finish the > > > mail the browsers work fine. I see some mention of appending dns > > > suffixes in the TCP setup on 2K but have no clue what > that does. I > > > tried a few of the options but none seemed to help. I wonder if I > > > could figure out the IP of the Road Runner > > > DNS Server and use it as a secondary DNS if that would > fix the problem? > > > Any clue how to get that info short of calling RR. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Kory > > > > > > Lynn Avants wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday 24 December 2002 02:07 pm, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > I recently upgraded my computer to Win2K. Once > completed I find > > > > > that when I open any browser I get host not found > errors for any > > > > > websites I try to view for about a minute or so then things > > > > > start to work and after 3 or 4 minutes everything works fine. > > > > > > > > > > The network information is: > > > > > 6 clients on small network 4 are win98SE one RH 8.0 and one > > > > > Win2k. Firewall is a pentium 225 with Bering RC3 with > DNScache. > > > > > All the clients access the internet flawlessly except for the > > > > > Win2K box. It is configured with the primary dns as > the internal > > > > > i'face on the firewall as it should be. The firewall > logs show > > > > > nothing for the time period when the connections fail. > > > > > > > > The logging would be through daemon.log and/or syslog. Win2K/XP > > > > uses a combined WINS/DNS combination that breaks all > other DNS and > > > > WINS rfc's (M$ just applied to add their idea as a new rfc). > > > > Strange things > > can > > > > happen because of this. As you later noted, you have > checked for > > > > Win2k to "automatically detect" your network > settings..... uncheck > > > > this as it > > is > > > > likely causing your connection lag. You don't have anything to > > > > discover outside of the dhcp information that is sent > during the > > > > boot of the > > system. > > > > Any other problems are likely because of the WINS/DNS discovery > > > > affecting that particular OS. > > > > > > > > I personally haven't had problems with any of these OS's, but I > > > > know of > > other > > > > people that have. > > > > -- > > > > ~Lynn Avants > > > > Linux Embedded Firewall Project developer > > > > http://leaf.sourceforge.net > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ------ > > > > leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user > > > > SR FAQ: > http://leaf-> project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---- > > > leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user > > > SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user > > SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/l> eaf-user > SR > FAQ: > http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ------------------------------------------------------------------------ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
