Different handling of referrals by dig and nslookup

kalpesh varyani kalpesh.link at gmail.com
Sun Feb 14 02:42:34 UTC 2010


Hi Rick,

I am aware that it is a somewhat odd (but not incorrect, am I right ?) to
put a non-recursive name server in the resolv.conf but I am not able to
understand the behavioral difference of ping/dig and nslookup.

But logically shouldn't it be moving to the next name server when the first
one fails even in the case of ping and dig. This is what, I think, one would
expect from a resolver.

Can you please put some light?

Regards,
Kalpesh.

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Rick Dicaire <kritek at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:07 PM, kalpesh varyani
> <kalpesh.link at gmail.com> wrote:
> > From a third linux system, I try name resolution using dig or nslookup.
> > In this system, I have resolv.conf as:
> >
> > nameserver A
> > nameserver B
>
> Just out of curiosity, why do you have a non recursing name server in
> resolv.conf?
>
> --
> aRDy Music and Rick Dicaire present:
> http://www.ardynet.com
> http://www.ardynet.com:9000/ardymusic.ogg.m3u
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20100214/31d6b3db/attachment.html>


More information about the bind-users mailing list