Different handling of referrals by dig and nslookup

[kalpesh varyani]

Thanks Dave for pointing this out.

the first server did not fail, it behaved as per its configuration.
But for a stub resolver, which cannot follow referrals, isnt it logical for
it to detect referrals and move on to the next name server in the list?

Regards,
Kalpesh

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Dave Sparro <dsparro at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/13/2010 9:42 PM, 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 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.
>>
>
> The first server in resolv.conf didn't fail.  It just didn't give you the
> answer you wanted.
>
> --
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20100220/640fcc9c/attachment.html>