bad referral

[Barry Margolin]

In article <3.0.3.32.20000626161142.01feb7e4 at pop3.hank.org>,
Bill Moseley  <moseley at hank.org> wrote:
>At 08:04 PM 06/26/00 GMT, Barry Margolin wrote:
>>>  bad referral (AMAZON.com !< www.amazon.com)
>
>>It's probably a Cisco Distributed Director.  You can configure A and SOA
>>records on them, but they don't have NS records on them.
>>
>>They've always had some problems implementing the DNS protocol fully.
>>However, the problems don't impact the queries they're designed to support,
>>so it's not usually a problem.  For instance, there's no reason for you to
>>ask it explicitly for NS records.  When you're trying to connect to
>>www.amazon.com, you should ask it for the A record.
>
>Hum.  Are you saying the "bad referral (AMAZON.com !< www.amazon.com)"
>message should only happen if I'm doing an NS RR lookup?  But the log
>message was a result of a Netscape lookup request, which I'd assume would
>be A RR lookups.

I'm not sure what caused the bad referral message; I was just explaining
what caused the "message too long" message from dig.  We have bad referral
logging disabled on our caching name servers, so I can't tell whether it
happens to us.

>Anyway, I'm stil curious:  what is the process that bind is going through
>to generate the "bad referral (AMAZON.com !< www.amazon.com)" message?

See <http://www.acmebw.com/askmrdns/bind-messages.htm#idx_b> for an
explanation of what that generally means.  Like I said, I don't know why
it's happening in this case.  Does it happen all the time when you try to
look up www.amazon.com?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.