cbuxton at menandmice.com
Thu Sep 28 21:55:56 UTC 2006
The dig command shows that the problem is not a problem on the DNS
server. I get the same answer here (the same two IP addresses), and I
can load the website just fine. Both web server addresses accept
connections on port 80.
What happens if you try to ping the name? This will test the stub
resolver. You should get one of these two addresses in the first line
of output. It doesn't matter whether you are actually able to ping
the web server.
Men & Mice
Take control of your network
On Sep 28, 2006, at 2:36 PM, Steve Ingraham wrote:
> Chris Buxton wrote:
> Start testing, using either 'dig' or something like it, to see what
> answer the stub resolver is getting from the resolving name server.
> Try with recursion both on and off (that is, try each query at least
> twice). Do you perhaps have an internal version of the zone oscn.net?
> Could there be some kind of routing or firewall issue that prevents
> your resolving name server from looking up the domain?
> Here are the results of the dig:
> ; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> www.oscn.net
> ;; global options: printcmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 57248
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;www.oscn.net. IN A
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> www.oscn.net. 3298 IN A 184.108.40.206
> www.oscn.net. 3298 IN A 220.127.116.11
> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> oscn.net. 168811 IN NS ns01.oscn.net.
> oscn.net. 168811 IN NS ns02.oscn.net.
> ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
> ns01.oscn.net. 161510 IN A 18.104.22.168
> ns02.oscn.net. 161508 IN A 22.214.171.124
> ;; Query time: 4 msec
> ;; SERVER: 126.96.36.199#53(188.8.131.52)
> ;; WHEN: Thu Sep 28 16:24:35 2006
> ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 132
> You asked if there could be a routing or firewall. We have a firewall
> but it has not been changed in anyway. Our users have been able to
> access the site prior to about 2 hours ago. Do you think there is a
> possibility that the www.oscn.net site could have changed any settings
> on their end that would have blocked our domain but not others?
> Steve Ingraham
More information about the bind-users