Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Browsers cannot access WWW while ping and host utilities work as expected.
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:08:19
Message-Id: 5209DA9F.5030504@gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Browsers cannot access WWW while ping and host utilities work as expected. by gevisz
1 On 13/08/2013 08:31, gevisz wrote:
2 > 2013/8/12 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>:
3 >> On 12/08/2013 09:13, gevisz wrote:
4 >>> The response of the first router contained an error that prevented all the
5 >>> other applications to use it, the system knew about it (for example from
6 >>> the output of the host utility) but, nevertheless did not proceeded with
7 >>> the next router listed in resolv.conf.
8 >>>
9 >>> I do undersand that this may be because of the layered structure of the
10 >>> networked software. But, nevertheless, I think that something is fundamentally
11 >>> wrong with this.
12 >>
13 >> What kind of error did you get?
14 >
15 > As I have already wrote it earlier, with three different DNS in
16 > /etc/resolv.conf and /etc/conf.d/net files, the host utility correctly
17 > reported IP address of a site (eg, www.google.com) but added
18 > the following message:
19 > ;; Warning: query response not set
20 >
21 > With only the first (my local DNS) in /etc/resolv.conf and
22 > /etc/conf.d/net files,
23 > the output of the host utility was as follows:
24 >
25 > # host www.google.com
26 > www.google.com has address 74.125.232.52
27 > www.google.com has address 74.125.232.48
28 > www.google.com has address 74.125.232.49
29 > www.google.com has address 74.125.232.50
30 > www.google.com has address 74.125.232.51
31 > ;; Warning: query response not set
32 > ;; Warning: query response not set
33 > Host www.google.com not found: 4(NOTIMP)
34 >
35 > In both cases above no internet application (eg, links or firefox)
36 > could convert site names to IP adresses and only after deleting
37 > the first (local) DNS from /etc/resolv.conf and /etc/conf.d/net files,
38 > internet applications started to work as expected (and the host
39 > utility, in this case, returned no error or warning message)
40 >
41 > That have proved to myself that
42 >
43 > "The response of the first router contained an error
44 > that prevented all the other applications to use it,
45 > the system knew about it (for example from
46 > the output of the host utility) but, nevertheless,
47 > did not proceeded with the next router listed in
48 > resolv.conf [or /etc/conf.d/net].
49 > I do undersand that this may be because of
50 > the layered structure of the networked software.
51 > But, nevertheless, I think that something is fundamentally
52 > wrong with this."
53
54
55 the host command is not your local resolver in libc, you cannot take the
56 output of host and conclude anything about your resolver, as they
57 operate in fundamentally different ways with entirely different purposes.
58
59 Your DNS setup is doing exactly what it is supposed to do - the first
60 cache returned an error and your local resolver concludes the query
61 cannot be resolved, so stops trying.
62
63 Solution: upgrade your router's firmware. It looks like it's bust.
64
65
66 >
67 >> If complete garbage came back, I'm not sure what the resolver does with
68 >> that (oddly enough, I never tested that)
69 >>
70 >> The more usual case is you get a proper DNS result of NXDOMAIN which
71 >> indicates the query is valid, but the entry is not in DNS. It's
72 >> pointless trying another cache as per DNS, they should all then return
73 >> that result.
74 >>
75 >> This is why the router did not try the other entries in resolv.conf -
76 >> that usually only happens when a cache does not respond. So the
77 >> behaviour you saw is probably correct albeit not the behaviour you wanted.
78 >>
79 >>
80 >> --
81 >> Alan McKinnon
82 >> alan.mckinnon@×××××.com
83 >>
84 >>
85 >
86
87
88 --
89 Alan McKinnon
90 alan.mckinnon@×××××.com