Am 17.11.2012 20:04, schrieb lee:
> Reindl Harald writes:
>
>> Am 17.11.2012 16:25, schrieb lee:
>>> Networkmanager is forcibly installed by default and breaks things when
>>> you do that --- add that to the list of problems. It should either use
>>> its own independent way or operate accordin
Reindl Harald writes:
> Am 17.11.2012 16:25, schrieb lee:
>> Networkmanager is forcibly installed by default and breaks things when
>> you do that --- add that to the list of problems. It should either use
>> its own independent way or operate according to the information provided
>> in such fil
Am 17.11.2012 16:25, schrieb lee:
> Networkmanager is forcibly installed by default and breaks things when
> you do that --- add that to the list of problems. It should either use
> its own independent way or operate according to the information provided
> in such files instead of messing things
Reindl Harald writes:
> Am 17.11.2012 00:10, schrieb lee:
>
>>> You never get guest computers, or get asked to take in someone else's
>>> computer and fix it, or install Linux on it for them? You never add new
>>> devices? Some of which really expect DHCP (network printers, gaming
>>> consoles,
Allegedly, on or about 16 November 2012, Reindl Harald sent:
> i agree that it makes no sense if there is no useful domain but the
> benefits for cases where you have one beats the overhead easily
I've tended to find that it's easier to do things if you do have a
domain name, even if you've faked
Am 17.11.2012 00:10, schrieb lee:
>> You never get guest computers, or get asked to take in someone else's
>> computer and fix it, or install Linux on it for them? You never add new
>> devices? Some of which really expect DHCP (network printers, gaming
>> consoles, media devices). Or had to c
Tim writes:
> Tim:
>>> I'd say, if you're installing BIND, then run a DHCP server on that
>>> same computer, and disable any other DHCP servers on your LAN (such
>>> as in your modem/router). Configure your DHCP server to tell all
>>> clients on your network the addresses for configuring your ne
Reindl Harald writes:
> Am 16.11.2012 21:45, schrieb lee:
>> 1.) omit the search option
>> 2.) put a non-existent domain into the search option
>> 3.) put an existing domain into the search option
>>
>>
>> No. 2.) isn't useful
>
> correct
>
>> no. 3.) leads to unexpected results and
>> confusio
Am 16.11.2012 21:45, schrieb lee:
> 1.) omit the search option
> 2.) put a non-existent domain into the search option
> 3.) put an existing domain into the search option
>
>
> No. 2.) isn't useful
correct
> no. 3.) leads to unexpected results and
> confusion[1] and therefore isn't very useful
Reindl Harald writes:
> Am 15.11.2012 18:38, schrieb lee:
>> Tim writes:
>>
>>> Allegedly, on or about 12 November 2012, lee sent:
If you're using a chaching name server, you might not want the
"search" option.
>>>
>>> You probably do. It, or a similar option, will be used so that "p
Tim:
>> I'd say, if you're installing BIND, then run a DHCP server on that
>> same computer, and disable any other DHCP servers on your LAN (such
>> as in your modem/router). Configure your DHCP server to tell all
>> clients on your network the addresses for configuring your network
>> (gateway, D
Am 15.11.2012 18:38, schrieb lee:
> Tim writes:
>
>> Allegedly, on or about 12 November 2012, lee sent:
>>> If you're using a chaching name server, you might not want the
>>> "search" option.
>>
>> You probably do. It, or a similar option, will be used so that "ping
>> hostname" successfully t
Tim writes:
> Allegedly, on or about 12 November 2012, lee sent:
>> If you're using a chaching name server, you might not want the
>> "search" option.
>
> You probably do. It, or a similar option, will be used so that "ping
> hostname" successfully translates into "ping hostname.domainname" on
>
Tim:
>> I tested using dig and nslookup, I already knew that they tell which
>> server answered, they told me that the same one kept answering.
Chris Adams:
> Those tools are really for debugging of DNS itself, and they do not use
> the normal resolver library (or at least not in the normal way).
Allegedly, on or about 12 November 2012, lee sent:
> If you're using a chaching name server, you might not want the
> "search" option.
You probably do. It, or a similar option, will be used so that "ping
hostname" successfully translates into "ping hostname.domainname" on
your network.
> install
Tim writes:
> Tim:
>> > I was only trying out the "rotate" option, but it makes no difference
>> > where it is in the file, as far my tests with the dig and nslookup
>> > commands, go. It may well be that *they* read the resolv.conf file in
>> > their own manner, only looking for nameserver line
On 11/14/2012 06:45 AM, Tim issued this missive:
Tim:
I was only trying out the "rotate" option, but it makes no difference
where it is in the file, as far my tests with the dig and nslookup
commands, go. It may well be that *they* read the resolv.conf file in
their own manner, only looking for
Once upon a time, Tim said:
> Methinks you didn't read what I wrote. I tested using dig and nslookup,
> I already knew that they tell which server answered, they told me that
> the same one kept answering. Nor, noticed where I mentioned the timing
> of results, in an earlier message.
Those tool
Tim:
> > I was only trying out the "rotate" option, but it makes no difference
> > where it is in the file, as far my tests with the dig and nslookup
> > commands, go. It may well be that *they* read the resolv.conf file in
> > their own manner, only looking for nameserver lines.
> >
> > Short of
Tim writes:
> Allegedly, on or about 13 November 2012, Rick Stevens sent:
>> It may have to be above the nameserver specifications:
>>
>> domain blah
>> search blah
>> options attempts:1 timeout:2
>> nameserver blah
>> nameserver blah
>>
>> In other words
Allegedly, on or about 13 November 2012, Rick Stevens sent:
> It may have to be above the nameserver specifications:
>
> domain blah
> search blah
> options attempts:1 timeout:2
> nameserver blah
> nameserver blah
>
> In other words, it may only take effect
Bob Goodwin:
> The only way I have to judge time is watching the bottom of the
> Firefox display where it tells me it's "Looking up" an address and
> doing a number of reloads on a complex page
It's hard to test DNS activity using Firefox, as it does its own
caching. To make it look up the same
On 11/13/2012 11:54 AM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA issued this
missive:
On 13/11/12 14:32, Rick Stevens wrote:
Is there a better way to test?
Format is "options timeout:1 attempts:1", and I'd move it above the
"nameserver" lines.
Good, I've changed resolv.conf:
[bobg@box7
On 13/11/12 14:32, Rick Stevens wrote:
Is there a better way to test?
Format is "options timeout:1 attempts:1", and I'd move it above the
"nameserver" lines.
Good, I've changed resolv.conf:
[bobg@box7 ~]$ cat /etc/resolv.conf
# Generated by NetworkManager
options ti
On 11/13/2012 11:12 AM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA issued this
missive:
On 13/11/12 13:06, Rick Stevens wrote:
You don't. You put the entries in the /etc/resolv.conf file and the
resolver library picks them up.
The 5 second
timeout seems much to long when combined with 5 tries, perh
On 13/11/12 13:06, Rick Stevens wrote:
You don't. You put the entries in the /etc/resolv.conf file and the
resolver library picks them up.
The 5 second
timeout seems much to long when combined with 5 tries, perhaps fewer
tries would be better? However I imagine there were good reasons f
On 11/13/2012 10:31 AM, Tim issued this missive:
Tim:
My reading of the man file suggested that one would add the options into
the resolv.conf file. Else why else are they mentioned in the man file
for it?
e.g.
/etc/resolv.conf
domain lan.example.com.
search lan.example.com.
nameserver 192.168
Tim:
> > My reading of the man file suggested that one would add the options into
> > the resolv.conf file. Else why else are they mentioned in the man file
> > for it?
> >
> > e.g.
> > /etc/resolv.conf
> > domain lan.example.com.
> > search lan.example.com.
> > nameserver 192.168.1.2
> > options
On 11/13/2012 10:04 AM, Tim issued this missive:
My reading of the man file suggested that one would add the options into
the resolv.conf file. Else why else are they mentioned in the man file
for it?
e.g.
/etc/resolv.conf
domain lan.example.com.
search lan.example.com.
nameserver 192.168.1.2
On 11/13/2012 08:38 AM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA issued this
missive:
On 13/11/12 09:59, Tim wrote:
I seem to recall that there is a way to set the timeout delay before
abandoning the first query, and querying the next server, but I don't
recall the details, and there's no man file for
Tim wrote:
> > I seem to recall that there is a way to set the timeout delay before
> > abandoning the first query, and querying the next server, but I don't
> > recall the details, and there's no man file for resolv.conf on this
> > installation of F17. I don't know if there's configuration optio
Tim:
> >It may well work fine, if all you ever ask the name servers to do is
> >resolve outside internet addresses. But, if you have a LAN that
> >communicates with things within the LAN, by name, then *all* name
> >queries need to be answered by your LAN DNS server, as no external DNS
> >server c
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 01:29:31 +1030,
Tim wrote:
It may well work fine, if all you ever ask the name servers to do is
resolve outside internet addresses. But, if you have a LAN that
communicates with things within the LAN, by name, then *all* name
queries need to be answered by your LAN DN
On 13/11/12 09:59, Tim wrote:
I seem to recall that there is a way to set the timeout delay before
abandoning the first query, and querying the next server, but I don't
recall the details, and there's no man file for resolv.conf on this
installation of F17. I don't know if there's configuration
Bob Goodwin:
> I always naively assumed they were used in the order listed, now
> you've introduced an element of doubt,
I used to presume that, especially when you're presented with a
configuration gadget that asked you to enter "primary" and "secondary"
name server addresses. But that naming ha
On 12/11/12 06:09, Tim wrote:
Tim:
> > Configure the other computers on your LAN to use the DNS server
> > computer's IP address as their DNS server. It's as simple as that.
Bob Goodwin:
> Will dns look-ups from the other computers be added to the
> nameserver list?
You appear to have the wr
"Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA" writes:
> On 11/11/12 14:50, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> "PEERDNS=no" is your friend touch prevent touch resolv.conf
>> and NO it is NOT ok to have ANY unrelieable DNS in
>> resolv.conf becasue as explaiend you have no control which is
>> used for a request, there
Tim:
> > Configure the other computers on your LAN to use the DNS server
> > computer's IP address as their DNS server. It's as simple as that.
Bob Goodwin:
> Will dns look-ups from the other computers be added to the
> nameserver list?
You appear to have the wrong end of the stick.
When any cl
Reindl Harald:
> > maybe you have a crappy ISP which blocks DNS if it is
> > not their own one - let me guess: USA, here in europe
> > it is absolutely no probem to setup a dns-server which
> > does recursion and never tocuhes any ISp crap, some
> > providers think they knpw better what their users
Am 11.11.2012 22:08, schrieb Bob Goodwin - Zuni:
> If I use 74.125.239.9 I get google.com so it seems logical that
> my own name server would provide 74.125.239.9 and I would go to Google?
>
>[bobg@box7 ~]$ nslookup google.com
>Server:192.168.1.1
>Address:192.168.1.1#53
On 11/11/12 15:54, Reindl Harald wrote:
if your ISP decides to setup a transparent DNS proxy
or block port 53 to DNS servers which are not his you
are out of opttions except wsitch to another ISP and
amek sure he decides not the same way some moths later
here where i live this all is theory, but
Am 11.11.2012 21:50, schrieb Bob Goodwin - Zuni:
> On 11/11/12 15:38, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 11.11.2012 21:33, schrieb Bob Goodwin - Zuni:
>>> >**Changed PEERDNS=no back to PEERDNS=yes
>>> >
>>> > ** and then I could send ...
>> maybe you have a crappy ISP which blocks DNS if it is
>>
On 11/11/12 15:38, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.11.2012 21:33, schrieb Bob Goodwin - Zuni:
>**Changed PEERDNS=no back to PEERDNS=yes
>
> ** and then I could send ...
maybe you have a crappy ISP which blocks DNS if it is
not their own one - let me guess: USA, here in europe
it is absolutel
Am 11.11.2012 21:33, schrieb Bob Goodwin - Zuni:
>**Changed PEERDNS=no back to PEERDNS=yes
>
> ** and then I could send ...
maybe you have a crappy ISP which blocks DNS if it is
not their own one - let me guess: USA, here in europe
it is absolutely no probem to setup a dns-server which
On 11/11/12 14:50, Reindl Harald wrote:
"PEERDNS=no" is your friend touch prevent touch resolv.conf
and NO it is NOT ok to have ANY unrelieable DNS in
resolv.conf becasue as explaiend you have no control which is
used for a request, there is no order, the diesgn is to
configure equal namservers a
On 11/11/12 14:50, Reindl Harald wrote:
"PEERDNS=no" is your friend touch prevent touch resolv.conf
and NO it is NOT ok to have ANY unrelieable DNS in
resolv.conf becasue as explaiend you have no control which is
used for a request, there is no order, the diesgn is to
configure equal namservers a
Am 11.11.2012 20:39, schrieb Bob Goodwin - Zuni:
>I rebooted this computer just to be safe and shows resolv.conf:
>
>[bobg@box7 ~]$ cat /etc/resolv.conf
># Generated by NetworkManager
>nameserver 192.168.1.1
>nameserver 127.0.0.1
>nameserver 184.63.128
On 11/11/12 12:48, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.11.2012 18:44, schrieb lee:
> You can specify several name servers to use, so you would make your
> computer which is running named the primary name server and another one
> the secondary one. When the primary name server isn't reachable, the
> clie
Am 11.11.2012 18:44, schrieb lee:
> You can specify several name servers to use, so you would make your
> computer which is running named the primary name server and another one
> the secondary one. When the primary name server isn't reachable, the
> clients are supposed to use the secondary one
"Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA" writes:
> On 11/11/12 11:51, Tim wrote:
>>> > 2: Is there a practical way to share my Linux dns with other
>>> > [Apple Mac, etc.] computers on our LAN?
>> Yes. Open the DNS server computer's firewall to allow DNS queries.
>> Configure the other computers on y
"Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA" writes:
>My ISP appears to have a dns problem today. it has been taking as
>much as one minute to deal wit an address! I appears that we are
>locked into using the Viasat provided dns, the usual alternatives
>like opndns do not work.
>
>I in
Am 11.11.2012 18:12, schrieb Bob Goodwin - Zuni:
> On 11/11/12 11:51, Tim wrote:
>>> > 2: Is there a practical way to share my Linux dns with other
>>> > [Apple Mac, etc.] computers on our LAN?
>> Yes. Open the DNS server computer's firewall to allow DNS queries.
>> Configure the other computers
On 11/11/12 11:51, Tim wrote:
> 2: Is there a practical way to share my Linux dns with other
> [Apple Mac, etc.] computers on our LAN?
Yes. Open the DNS server computer's firewall to allow DNS queries.
Configure the other computers on your LAN to use the DNS server
computer's IP address as thei
Allegedly, on or about 11 November 2012, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia,
USA sent:
> 1: It seems to me that it must have to collect and accumulate
> it's own list of addresses which would mean it is normal for it
> to work faster the second time an address is requested of it?
Correct.
> 2: Is there
My ISP appears to have a dns problem today. it has been taking as
much as one minute to deal wit an address! I appears that we are
locked into using the Viasat provided dns, the usual alternatives
like opndns do not work.
I installed caching-nameserver which seems to restore things
55 matches
Mail list logo
