Roman,
I've never tried this myself, but I think that other option would be
to use iptables' OUTPUT chain with "-o your virtual interface". You
can also restrict this rule to filter only DNS ports and so on.
Another option is to use static routes, like Mihamina suggested.
Cheers,
On Fri, Aug 3,
On 08/03/2012 08:05 AM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
I have configured 2 vlan interfaces on debian lenny box. The 2
interface ip's are 192.168.6.5 and 192..168.8.5. I would like making
dns queries from this ip 192.168.6.5. What can be done to ensure that
a dns query is made using specific response ip?
I have configured 2 vlan interfaces on debian lenny box. The 2
interface ip's are 192.168.6.5 and 192..168.8.5. I would like making
dns queries from this ip 192.168.6.5. What can be done to ensure that
a dns query is made using specific response ip?
Thanks in advance
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On 2010-08-06 10:01 +0200, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> With
>
> nfs:/home /home nfs defaults0 0
>
> in /etc/fstab I get
>
> mount.nfs: Failed to resolve server nfs: Temporary failure in name resolution
>
> on boot. This is because I use local bind9 and /etc/reso
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 15:22:19 +0300, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>> So we are doing something wrong here.
>
> It seems that /etc/init.d/mountnfs.sh does not actually call mount, it
> is done by
>
> /etc/network/if-up.d/mountnfs
>
> when a network interface is brought up.
>
>
Timo Juhani Lindfors writes:
> Should I try starting bind9 before network is brought up? That sounds
> very counter-intuitive.
Replying to myself here: this fails since bind9 says "no networks
configured". A hack that works for now seems to be to add
if [ "$(pidof named)" = "" ]; then
/etc/i
Camaleón writes:
> So we are doing something wrong here.
It seems that /etc/init.d/mountnfs.sh does not actually call mount, it
is done by
/etc/network/if-up.d/mountnfs
when a network interface is brought up.
Should I try starting bind9 before network is brought up? That sounds
very counter-in
Camaleón writes:
> Did you read the manual or the docs for insserv? Maybe we are missing some
> step to fully populate the new boot sequence :-?
I did try but the man page does not really mention when symlinks are
created. For example
$ echo /etc/rc*/*bind9
/etc/rc0.d/K02bind9 /etc/rc1.d/K02bin
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 12:52:11 +0300, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>> $named bind9
>
> Thanks for the effort but this does not seem to be enough:
>
> $ grep -Ev "(^#|^$)" /etc/insserv.conf
(...)
> $named +named +dnsmasq +lwresd bind9 $network
> $remote_fs
Camaleón writes:
> $namedbind9
Thanks for the effort but this does not seem to be enough:
$ grep -Ev "(^#|^$)" /etc/insserv.conf
$local_fs +mountall +mountoverflowtmp +umountfs
$network+networking +ifupdown
$named +named +dnsmasq +lwresd bind9 $network
$remote_fs
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:01:01 +0300, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
(...)
> I tried adding " bind9" to the $remote_fs line of /etc/insserv.conf but
> got
>
> $ sudo insserv --dryrun
> insserv: There is a loop between service bind9 and rsyslog if started
> insserv: loop involving service rsyslog at
With
nfs:/home /home nfs defaults0 0
in /etc/fstab I get
mount.nfs: Failed to resolve server nfs: Temporary failure in name resolution
on boot. This is because I use local bind9 and /etc/resolv.conf has
nameserver 127.0.0.1
I tried adding " bind9" to the $rem
* Old Crankbuster [2009-05-17 10:22:21 +0700]:
> * Michael M. Moore [2009-05-16 16:20:28 -0700]:
>
(suggested disabling ipv6 entirely)
> I'm seeing almost exactly the same thing in Fedora 11, and we're working
> on that one in those lists. I think the local isp here has broken
> servers,
* Old Crankbuster [2009-05-17 10:29:04 +0700]:
> Ah. But this a standard install with no proxy, upgraded to Sid. The
> difference between this side and that side is that I run bind9 on this
> side as caching nameserver on this box... Waitaminnit
>
For grins, I just reinstalled Lenny on t
* Alex Samad [2009-05-17 10:53:31 +1000]:
> you realise when you use a proxy the proxy does the name resolution.
> also apt can be set to use a proxy as well in apt.conf and the
> environment.
Ah. But this a standard install with no proxy, upgraded to Sid. The
difference between this side a
* Michael M. Moore [2009-05-16 16:20:28 -0700]:
> Out of curiosity, if you ping the repositories first, then run apt-get
> update, does it resolve properly and proceed with the update?
Nope, no joy. The repos do resolve with ping, however. There seems to
be something else going on when I cal
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 04:20:28PM -0700, Michael M. Moore wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 13:16 +0700, Old Crankbuster wrote:
> > * Peter Crawford [2009-05-14 10:49:54 -0700]:
> >
[snip]
> > Interestingly, have been able to solve the surfing problem in iceweasel
> > by setting the network setti
On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 13:16 +0700, Old Crankbuster wrote:
> * Peter Crawford [2009-05-14 10:49:54 -0700]:
>
> > Does /etc/hosts begin thus?
> >
> > 127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost
> > 127.0.1.1mycomputer.invalidmycomputer
> >
> > If so, try commenting the 2nd line.
>
>
* Peter Crawford [2009-05-14 10:49:54 -0700]:
> Does /etc/hosts begin thus?
>
> 127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost
> 127.0.1.1mycomputer.invalidmycomputer
>
> If so, try commenting the 2nd line.
Tried the above, to no avail, so have reverted to original /etc/hosts
thus:
> This doesn't look like a problem with DNS.
>
> But what could it be?
Does /etc/hosts begin thus?
127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost
127.0.1.1mycomputer.invalidmycomputer
If so, try commenting the 2nd line.
Regards, ... p. crawford
___
* Old Crankbuster [2009-05-14 19:25:48 +0700]:
> * Old Crankbuster [2009-05-14 19:22:14 +0700]:
>
>
> > $ nslookup security.debian.org
> > Server: 127.0.0.1
> > Address:127.0.0.1#53
> >
> Oops wrong output, should read:
>
> Server: 192.168.1.1
> Address: 1
* Old Crankbuster [2009-05-14 19:22:14 +0700]:
> $ nslookup security.debian.org
> Server: 127.0.0.1
> Address: 127.0.0.1#53
>
Oops wrong output, should read:
Server: 192.168.1.1
Address:192.168.1.1#53
--
Cheers
signature.asc
Description: Digital signatu
* Jörg-Volker Peetz [2009-05-14 12:17:01 +0200]:
> What is the outcome of the command
>
> dig +short
>
> or alternatively
>
> nslookup
>
> ?
# apt-get update:
(truncated, all repositories return the same)
Err http://security.debian.org lenny/updates Release.gpg
Could not resolve 'sec
What is the outcome of the command
dig +short
or alternatively
nslookup
?
--
Regards,
Jörg-Volker.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
* Andrei Popescu [2009-05-14 08:59:58 +0300]:
> Maybe this NEWS entry?
>
> ,[ /usr/share/doc/libc6/NEWS.Debian ]
> | glibc (2.9-8) unstable; urgency=low
> |
> | Starting with version 2.9-8, unified IPv4/IPv6 lookup have been enabled
> | in the glibc's resolver. This is faster, fixes nume
On Thu,14.May.09, 10:30:44, Old Crankbuster wrote:
[DNS troubles in sid]
> What do I need to look at?
Maybe this NEWS entry?
,[ /usr/share/doc/libc6/NEWS.Debian ]
| glibc (2.9-8) unstable; urgency=low
|
| Starting with version 2.9-8, unified IPv4/IPv6 lookup have been enabled
| in the
Hi all -
I put Sid on a couple partitions on this machine to play around with
some other things, but I'm running into a problem:
DNS lookups don't seem to be working. I can get to Google alright, but
none of the links out of google's search page work - page not found.
Fu
On Sat, 12 May 2007 09:03:41 -0500
Dallas Clement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I wish there was a way to keep my ISP DNS addresses in
> the /etc/resolv.conf file permanently. I think they get overwritten
> after getting a DHCP response.
There certainly is; we discussed this on the list n
Dallas Clement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I wish there was a way to keep my ISP DNS addresses in
> > > the /etc/resolv.conf file permanently. I think they get
> > > overwritten after getting a DHCP response.
> >
> > Can't the router be reconfigured?
>
> I opened up port 53 for both UDP an
On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 16:15 +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 09:03:41AM -0500, Dallas Clement wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 14:27 +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:41:59AM -0500, Dallas Clement wrote:
> > > > I'm getting terrible DNS lookup
Kushal Kumaran wrote the following on 12.05.2007 10:26:
> This is not really a solution, just a workaround, but have you tried
> installing a local DNS cache? pdnsd requires no configuration to set
> up.
pdnsd is neat. thanks.
bye Thilo
--
i am on Ubuntu 2.6 KDE
- some friend of mine
gpg ke
On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 10:40 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 09:03:41AM -0500, Dallas Clement wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 14:27 +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:41:59AM -0500, Dallas Clement wrote:
> > > > I'm getting terrible DNS look
On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 16:15 +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 09:03:41AM -0500, Dallas Clement wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 14:27 +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:41:59AM -0500, Dallas Clement wrote:
> > > > I'm getting terrible DNS lookup
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 09:03:41AM -0500, Dallas Clement wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 14:27 +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:41:59AM -0500, Dallas Clement wrote:
> > > I'm getting terrible DNS lookup performance on my Debian Etch system.
> > > I've installed the "Etc
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 09:03:41AM -0500, Dallas Clement wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 14:27 +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:41:59AM -0500, Dallas Clement wrote:
> > > I'm getting terrible DNS lookup performance on my Debian Etch system.
> > >
> Interestingly, if I
> >> I've installed the "Etch" - Official Beta amd64 version.
> > > > >
> > > > >What is an official beta of Etch which is the current Stable?
> > > >
> > > > Sadly, after upgrading to 4.0 r0 I am still experiencing the
> > ;; global options: printcmd
> > ;; Got answer:
> [snip]
> > ;; Query time: 10 msec
> > ;; SERVER: 192.168.0.1#53(192.168.0.1)
> > ;; WHEN: Thu May 10 09:39:26 2007
> > ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 368
> >
> >
> > real0m10.031s
> > user0m0.000s
>
>
> real0m10.031s
> user0m0.000s
> sys 0m0.000s
Weird - the elapsed time for the DNS queries are reported as 10 msec
each, yet they are 5 seconds apart?
> This very same machine also has Windows Vista Ultimate 64 installed on
> it and DNS lookups are lightning f
ial beta of Etch which is the current Stable?
> >
> > Sadly, after upgrading to 4.0 r0 I am still experiencing the slow DNS
> > lookups.
> >
> > This is what's in my sources.list file:
> >
> > debian:~# cat /etc/apt/sources.list
> >
> >
gt;> I'm getting terrible DNS lookup performance on my Debian Etch system.
> >> I've installed the "Etch" - Official Beta amd64 version.
> >
> >What is an official beta of Etch which is the current Stable?
>
> Sadly, after upgrading to 4.0 r0 I am
n Etch system.
> >> I've installed the "Etch" - Official Beta amd64 version.
> >
> >What is an official beta of Etch which is the current Stable?
>
> Sadly, after upgrading to 4.0 r0 I am still experiencing the slow DNS
> lookups.
>
> This is what&#
>
What is an official beta of Etch which is the current Stable?
Send us your /etc/apt/souces.list after you have done an update and
upgrade, if the problem continues.
Doug.
--
Sadly, after upgrading to 4.0 r0 I am still experiencing the slow DNS lookups.
This is what's in my sources.list
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:41:59AM -0500, Dallas Clement wrote:
>
> I'm getting terrible DNS lookup performance on my Debian Etch system.
> I've installed the "Etch" - Official Beta amd64 version.
>
What is an official beta of Etch which is the current Stable?
Send us your /etc/apt/souces.list
)
;; WHEN: Thu May 10 09:39:26 2007
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 368
real0m10.031s
user0m0.000s
sys 0m0.000s
debian:/#
This very same machine also has Windows Vista Ultimate 64 installed on
it and DNS lookups are lightning fast. There is definitely something
going on with Debian Etch or perhaps t
All,I'm running firefox 1.5.dfsg-4 on an unstable install. Whenever firefox is running it sends almost constant DNS requests (3 or 4 requests per seconds). This traffic stays constant for hours at a time.
Anyone know what causes this, or how I can stop it?Tom
s due to caching), and it will return the IP.
The windows box has no problems at all with DNS lookups. It's
operating fine. All the other *nix boxes are effected. Tried a
different router, same issue. Reset modem and set everything back up
from scratch (Actiontec DSL modem).
Anyone have any clue
OK Another take on this: I'm trying to debug why DNS lookups from a
Debian woody firewall machine have become slow over an ADSL link to
British Telecom's DNS servers (router and servers not changed lately).
I'm an amateur sysop but generally cope well but need some help
debugging
I have a small home network of two Debian stable machines and two
Windoze portables (boo hiss but my work and spouse's require that).
I'm hitting something that's puzzling me which is that DNS lookups
from the firewall machine are slow whether directly or from the
Windoze machines b
Hello!
Recently I discovered something weird on my system: Seemingly every
minute, it does DNS lookups for its own host names, which of course fail
because I'm not in my ISP's DNS (and don't even have a dynamic IP, plus
I'm on a local network with a firewall). Here is an
Hello!
Recently I discovered something weird on my system: Seemingly every
minute, it does DNS lookups for its own host names, which of course fail
because I'm not in my ISP's DNS (and don't even have a dynamic IP, plus
I'm on a local network with a firewall). Here is an
Oops, sorry for the double. My bad.
Grx HdV
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
J.A. de Vries wrote:
Contrary to common belief DNS is not UDP only. Once in a while a normal query will be to large and then TCP packets are used. So TCP is not exclusively for zone-transfers.
If I understand what I've just read from a Google search, TCP is used
when the data exceeds 512 bytes (
Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 22:02, Malcolm Ferguson wrote:
I have /etc/resolv.conf containing a nameserver entry. I also have some name servers listed in the forwarders section of etc/bind/named.conf. Is there a way to configure both bind and the normal name resolver (how
does
I'm trying to configure iptables as strictly as possible, however, I'm
having problems with DNS. If I understand correctly how DNS works, the
client sends a UDP packet from a high number port to port 53 on the name
server. The name server responds with a UDP packet back to that high
number po
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Malcolm Ferguson wrote:
> If I understand what I've just read from a Google search, TCP is used
> when the data exceeds 512 bytes (or as you say, for zone transfers). Is
> this always to TCP port 53 on the server, or can the server indicate an
> alternative port in it's initia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:37:02AM -0400, Malcolm Ferguson wrote:
> This might be another dumb question, but how do I tell if the connection
> tracking module isn't loaded? How is this configured, enabled,
> disabled, etc?
iptables will bitch at yo
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 22:02, Malcolm Ferguson wrote:
> I have /etc/resolv.conf containing a nameserver entry. I also have some
> name servers listed in the forwarders section of /etc/bind/named.conf.
> Is there a way to configure both bind and the normal name resolver (how
> does it work???) t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:02:42PM -0400, Malcolm Ferguson wrote:
> I'm trying to configure iptables as strictly as possible, however, I'm
> having problems with DNS. If I understand correctly how DNS works, the
> client sends a UDP packet from a hi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to see the full script go to
http://huizen.dto.tudelft.nl/devries/security/iptables_example.nl.html
for an explanation and to
http://huizen.dto.tudelft.nl/devries/files/iptables_files.tar.gz
for the archive. Currently there's only a Dutch explanation avail
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Malcolm Ferguson wrote:
> I'm trying to configure iptables as strictly as possible, however, I'm
> having problems with DNS. If I understand correctly how DNS works, the
> client sends a UDP packet from a high number port to port 53 on the name
> server. The name server respo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:23:59PM -0500, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> iptables -A INPUT -s --sport 53 --dport 53 -p
> udp -i -j ACCEPT
> iptables -A INPUT -s --sport 53 --dport 53 -p
> udp -i -j ACCEPT
>
> and maybe a matching set with "-p tcp".
You s
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Malcolm Ferguson wrote:
> I'm trying to configure iptables as strictly as possible, however, I'm
> having problems with DNS. If I understand correctly how DNS works, the
> client sends a UDP packet from a high number port to port 53 on the name
> server. The name server respo
Hello,
I did a fresh install of woody.
whenever I try to telnet or ssh to some machine, the connect takes several
seconds - it seems the system is trying an DNS lookup on the target,
even if it is listed in /etc/hosts (and even for localhost!). I have order
hosts,bind in host.conf and the eq
oftpd and sshd are doing reverse DNS
> lookups.
> So I supose the way to solve this is to set up a dns server.
> I started up setting up a cache dns server just doing apt-get install
> task-dns-server, adding 127.0.0.1 to the server's resolv.conf and making
> each machine in th
Hi
some of my linux servers inside a private range IP lan, are giving slow
responses to clients inside the lan connecting to ftp or ssh.
Whe had no DNS running.
It seems to me this is because proftpd and sshd are doing reverse DNS
lookups.
So I supose the way to solve this is to set up a dns
Jeff Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> try putting the local servers in /etc/hosts
They are in /etc/hosts - on both hosts.
moritz
--
Moritz Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://hp9001.fh-bielefeld.de/~moritz/
Debian/GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org/ http://www.gnu.org
GPG fingerpri
rk
> > without establishing a internet connection.
> >
> > Can somebody please tell me what am I missing?
>
> Can they ping each other using names without doing DNS lookups?
>
> --
> Sean Furey, a happy and satisfied Debian user.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
Sean Furey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Moritz!
Hi,
> Can they ping each other using names without doing DNS lookups?
Yes, without problems.
moritz
--
Moritz Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://hp9001.fh-bielefeld.de/~moritz/
Debian/GNU supporter - http://ww
ssing?
Can they ping each other using names without doing DNS lookups?
--
Sean Furey, a happy and satisfied Debian user.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#
[...]
# Send all mail to a smarthost
smarthost:
driver = domainlist
transport = remote_smtp
route_list = "* orion.sc byname"
end
I *wrote* "byname", which tells Exim to use gethostbyname() to find
the IP address of orion and not "bydns_*"
BUT
guyren >> From: Guyren G Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
guyren >> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 04:40:40 -0800
guyren >> To: "debian-user@lists.debian.org"
guyren >> Subject: DNS lookups fail
guyren >>
guyren >> I have somehow managed to get things so that the
try manually setting a DNS:
run nslookup
enter: server some.server.name (feel free to use mine ns1.firetrail.com or
ns2.firetrail.com)
then enter a domain or ip or something to query the server
if it times out it is more likely a network problem then a resolver
problem. if it works, then try yo
x27;s a routing
issue.
--
> From: Guyren G Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 04:40:40 -0800
> To: "debian-user@lists.debian.org"
> Subject: DNS lookups fail
>
> I have somehow managed to get things so that the computers going through my
>
I have somehow managed to get things so that the computers going through my
Debian 2.2 box for NAT can do DNS just fine, but I can't do a nslookup from
the same box itself to save myself.
nslookup never returns anything, even a timeout. My /etc/resolv.conf file
shows the same things I have set on
> "George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> Microsoft will not "invent" DNS until NT5. Easy way is to
George> simply insert the IP adddesses into the /etc/hosts file OR
George> buy the book "DNS and BIND" from www.ora.com and learn how
George> to build your own DNS
The /etc/resolv.conf file contains both those servers?
From: "Rudy Broersma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Debian User List"
Subject: DNS Lookups
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 22:44:53 +0200
Hi,
My linux boxes can't perform DNS lookups. For example, if I want to mou
Hi,
My linux boxes can't perform DNS lookups. For example, if I want to mount an
SMB Share, I have to do something like this:
SMBMOUNT //NTSERVER/NT_SHARE /MOUNTPOINT
But all I get back is: NTServer: Unknown host.
The same happends when I ping my NTserver using his domain name: Ping
NTS
>> "JB" == Jay Barbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JB> My home system is setup on a dummy network (192.168.xxx.xxx), and I do
JB> typically email myself at my work Debian box which is on the net with a
JB> legit IP address. Now (after the hamm upgrade, I assume) I cannot send
JB> mail, and port 2
On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Jay Barbee wrote:
>
> I recently upgraded several of my Bo systems to Hamm. All went fine. I
> am currently struggling with some of the minor changes that the new
> packages have.
delete use_bind in your /etc/smail/transports file's smarthost clause and
probably anywhere
I recently upgraded several of my Bo systems to Hamm. All went fine. I
am currently struggling with some of the minor changes that the new
packages have.
My home system is setup on a dummy network (192.168.xxx.xxx), and I do
typically email myself at my work Debian box which is on the net with
ookups or
> something. I'm no expert in this area, but what else can it be? Routing is
> definitely not a problem. Running "ping" before trying the telnet session
> returns "immediate" responses. Connecting from some remote hosts is no
> problem, otheres there
81 matches
Mail list logo
