Different handling of referrals by dig and nslookup

[Doug Barton]

On 02/13/10 18:42, kalpesh varyani wrote:
> 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

There are certain very specific circumstances where you might want to do 
this, but in general I can't see any reason to do this, and would not 
recommend it.

> but I am not able
> to understand the behavioral difference of ping/dig and nslookup.

What is it that you want to understand? You seem quite focused on 
figuring out why they are behaving differently, is there some reason why 
you need to put a non-resolving name server in resolv.conf?

> 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.

dig is a DNS diagnostic tool. You asked for an answer, you got an 
answer. The fact that it didn't move on is not a mystery. nslookup is 
designed to get its answers from the system resolver, so the real 
question is, why did ping and nslookup behave differently? But that's 
really a question for your linux distro.


Good luck,

Doug

-- 

	... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
			-- Propellerheads

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/