dig +trace problems

[Will Yardley]

In article <agvq4e$e0$1 at isrv4.isc.org>, Will Yardley wrote:
[ sorry for the self-followup ]
 
> What's odd is that I could reproduce the problem on another machine
> before, but both machines now seem to work just fine now that
> A.GTLD.BIZ. can be reached again.

Ahh - that's because A.GTLD.BIZ. still *does* have the record...
C.GTLD.BIZ does too, though, and if I block connections from
A.GTLD.BIZ., it still breaks (I'm sure this makes sense -- just seems
kinda odd):

aura% grep 209.173.53.162 /etc/ipf.rules
block in log quick on fxp0 from 209.173.53.162/32 to any
aura% dig +sh @C.GTLD.BIZ. B.GTLD.BIZ.
209.173.57.162
aura% dig +trace ilove.lancaster.pa.us. 
      
; <<>> DiG 9.3.0s20020703 <<>> +trace ilove.lancaster.pa.us.
;; global options:  printcmd
.                       334522  IN      NS      K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       334522  IN      NS      L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       334522  IN      NS      M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       334522  IN      NS      A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       334522  IN      NS      B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       334522  IN      NS      C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       334522  IN      NS      D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       334522  IN      NS      E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       334522  IN      NS      F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       334522  IN      NS      G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       334522  IN      NS      H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       334522  IN      NS      I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       334522  IN      NS      J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
;; Received 356 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) in 5 ms

us.                     172800  IN      NS      A.GTLD.BIZ.
us.                     172800  IN      NS      B.GTLD.BIZ.
us.                     172800  IN      NS      C.GTLD.BIZ.
;; Received 143 bytes from 193.0.14.129#53(K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) in 189 ms

dig: couldn't get address for 'B.GTLD.BIZ': not found

Ok - i'll shut up now :>

-- 
No copies, please.
To reply privately, simply reply; don't remove anything.