|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Mike Scott
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 138
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject:
Re: major DNS hiccup
|
|
|
jpd wrote:
| Quote: | Begin <7kqsg.79971$lQ.52678@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net
On 2006-07-10, Mike Scott <usenet.10@spam.stopper.scottsonline.org.uk> wrote:
If you can't replace the modem, and software tools (dig, ping, ttcp,
etc.) don't help, it's time to try and get a tech (level 2,3,4...) from
your ISP on the case.
Tried asking. As expected: "we can't support your system";
``That's fine,'' you reply, ``as I do that myself.'' That doesn't mean
they don't have their network to take care of. I usually can (eventually)
get through to someone who can order a linecheck/cardcheck/whatevercheck.
|
I know the theory. But most UK ISPs have reputations of maximising
income and minimising their own work. Which means the front-line people
will use any excuse to do nothing, not helped by their being
script-merchants with orders (it usually seems) not to disturb any real
techies. So unless I can put the finger on exactly where in their system
any fault may be, I'll get no joy. And I have to admit, there's about
as much proof it's /not/ ntl as there is that it's not my own system:
all the UDP packets carry correct checksums, and none appear to have
been dropped.
I think I may have to let this rest. From a practical pov, I've a backup
system running that works even if less satisfactory. But I still really
would like to know what's going on - maybe watch and wait, I don't know.
--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Scott
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 138
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:39 pm Post subject:
Re: major DNS hiccup
|
|
|
Per Hedeland wrote:
....
| Quote: | But the queries aren't identical - the first one uses EDNS0 to send an
OPT RR - the server responds to this with FORMERR (Format Error), which
can be expected from a server that doesn't understand EDNS0. The second
query is a retry without the EDSN0 part, and it succeeds, getting a
proper response. I.e. there's no indication of anything wrong here, all
is by the spec (RFC 2671).
|
Ah, I'm really not familiar enough with all the details.
....
| Quote: | If you have forwarders specified in your named.conf, you might want to
try changing/removing them. Also, BIND allows for turning off the EDSN0
attempt, but as far as I can see only on a per-destination-server basis
- i.e. this won't be useful unless you can identify servers that behave
brokenly.
|
It's a straightforward caching server - plus it's the master for my own
[illicit] domain.
Out of curiosity, I installed posadis and set that going as a caching
server. Same result as for BIND.
I tried turning off edns for one particular server, but it didn't seem
to make any difference - not sure why; maybe I've misunderstood the man
page.
I can "dig @localhost ....." and use ethereal to monitor the failure and
see the responding server address. If I then "dig @that-address ......",
going straight to that server bypassing my own, it appears to work.
Looking at a sample of 1, it does appear that dig constructs a query
/without/ the edns flag. So maybe that's a big clue. But then, afaict
posadis has no edns support, so why should that fail exactly like BIND
when ending requests to the net?
Is there really no way of turning this off globally?? I'm reluctant to
turn it into a forwarding server - my ISP has something of a poor
reputation for its nameservers.
--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jpd
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 877
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject:
Re: major DNS hiccup
|
|
|
Begin <cFusg.94712$uP.55403@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>
On 2006-07-10, Mike Scott <usenet.10@spam.stopper.scottsonline.org.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | I know the theory. But most UK ISPs have reputations of maximising
income and minimising their own work. Which means the front-line people
will use any excuse to do nothing, not helped by their being
script-merchants with orders (it usually seems) not to disturb any real
techies.
|
I think it's understandable they have a first line helldesk to firewall
the techies given the market they (choose to) serve. But, you used that
as an excuse yourself, which is self-defeating. Besides, at least my
crappy isp also has a fax number and a postal address.
| Quote: | So unless I can put the finger on exactly where in their system
any fault may be, I'll get no joy. And I have to admit, there's about
as much proof it's /not/ ntl as there is that it's not my own system:
all the UDP packets carry correct checksums, and none appear to have
been dropped.
|
I never said you shouldn't first get proof that the problem isn't on
your end. Calling them before you have that proof just gets you fobbed
off. It's just that *once you have that proof*, no excuse on their part
should be stopping you to get them to fix problems in their network.
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jpd
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 877
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:02 pm Post subject:
Re: major DNS hiccup
|
|
|
Begin <e8tl9j$nci$2@hedeland.org>
| Quote: | In article <drprg.73093$lQ.50977@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net> Mike Scott
But the queries aren't identical - the first one uses EDNS0 to send an
OPT RR - the server responds to this with FORMERR (Format Error), which
can be expected from a server that doesn't understand EDNS0.
|
.... and I didn't spot that. Oh well.
| Quote: | Unfortunately this doesn't really help resolve your problem I guess, but
at least it should eliminate one of the "this looks wrong" parts.
|
A quick search suggests that some name servers (``at least one'')
doesn't return an error but just drops the packet on the floor.
So it still might be related.
After that, it's time to revise the problem description. >:-)
| Quote: | If you have forwarders specified in your named.conf, you might want to
try changing/removing them. Also, BIND allows for turning off the EDSN0
attempt, but as far as I can see only on a per-destination-server basis
- i.e. this won't be useful unless you can identify servers that behave
brokenly.
|
OTOH, setting it to forward only to the isp's dns servers would at
least serve as a test.
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jpd
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 877
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject:
Re: major DNS hiccup
|
|
|
Begin <gpvsg.94884$uP.41449@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>
On 2006-07-10, Mike Scott <usenet.10@spam.stopper.scottsonline.org.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | It's a straightforward caching server - plus it's the master for my own
[illicit] domain.
|
You'll want to change that. Registering your own domain isn't that hard.
If you don't want to do that, at least don't use a domain that can be
registered. fantasyname.local. would do in a pinch, though.
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Per Hedeland
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:12 pm Post subject:
Re: major DNS hiccup
|
|
|
In article <gpvsg.94884$uP.41449@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net> Mike Scott
<usenet.10@spam.stopper.scottsonline.org.uk> writes:
| Quote: | Per Hedeland wrote:
...
If you have forwarders specified in your named.conf, you might want to
try changing/removing them. Also, BIND allows for turning off the EDSN0
attempt, but as far as I can see only on a per-destination-server basis
- i.e. this won't be useful unless you can identify servers that behave
brokenly.
It's a straightforward caching server - plus it's the master for my own
[illicit] domain.
Out of curiosity, I installed posadis and set that going as a caching
server. Same result as for BIND.
I tried turning off edns for one particular server, but it didn't seem
to make any difference - not sure why; maybe I've misunderstood the man
page.
I can "dig @localhost ....." and use ethereal to monitor the failure and
see the responding server address. If I then "dig @that-address ......",
going straight to that server bypassing my own, it appears to work.
Looking at a sample of 1, it does appear that dig constructs a query
/without/ the edns flag.
|
You can make it use EDNS0 by giving the +bufsize=B option, see the man
page.
| Quote: | So maybe that's a big clue. But then, afaict
posadis has no edns support, so why should that fail exactly like BIND
when ending requests to the net?
|
I'm not familiar with posadis - perhaps you can provide a packet trace
of the failure when using it. If it doesn't support EDNS0, it can't be
the same as the trace you posted earlier. And of course that trace
didn't actually show a failure either - i.e. so far you haven't shown
*any* trace with a failure...
| Quote: | Is there really no way of turning this off globally?? I'm reluctant to
turn it into a forwarding server - my ISP has something of a poor
reputation for its nameservers.
|
I didn't see any way to turn it off globally when browsing the docs for
the BIND that comes with FBSD 5.3 (which is what I'm using atm) - seems
to be 9.3.0. Could have been added in a later version though - but if
you can reproduce the problem at will, it's probably best to first try
to determine that it really *is* EDNS0-related, so far the evidence
doesn't suggest so I think.
And I would tend to agree with your reluctance to use forwarders - I'm
also not a fan of it, at least when the forwarders are someone else's
(it can make a lot of sense for a large intranet to have forwarders
under your control and point internal servers at them). But as jpd said,
it could be useful just for testing.
--Per Hedeland
per@hedeland.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Scott
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 138
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject:
Re: major DNS hiccup
|
|
|
jpd wrote:
....
| Quote: | OTOH, setting it to forward only to the isp's dns servers would at
least serve as a test.
|
A test now done. Works perfectly. Remove the forwarding stuff from the
config, fails miserably.
I need to sleep on this :-)
--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Lord
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 113
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:22 pm Post subject:
Re: major DNS hiccup
|
|
|
On Monday, in article
<Ejxsg.35211$Xp3.17281@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>
usenet.10@spam.stopper.scottsonline.org.uk "Mike Scott"
wrote:
| Quote: | jpd wrote:
...
OTOH, setting it to forward only to the isp's dns servers would at
least serve as a test.
A test now done. Works perfectly. Remove the forwarding stuff from the
config, fails miserably.
I need to sleep on this
|
FWIW I've seen posts elsewhere suggesting dns problems backend of
last week. I'm using A&As' nameservers as forwarder and named
doesn't use root servers unless isp servers are down.
David
--
The Reply-To: is valid for at least 30 days after posting date |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom D
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:40 am Post subject:
Re: major DNS hiccup
|
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:09:50 GMT, Mike Scott
<usenet.10@spam.stopper.scottsonline.org.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | This was all working fine until this afternoon - when I did nothing and
it just decided to malfunction.
|
Software doesn't just "break" on its own so, I suspect a hardware
problem.
You seem to have looked at everything except your cables.
COMMUNICATION CABLES: Visually inspect for physical damage.
From the utility poll to your building: Tree branches rubbing against
service cables.
In the building: Squirrels, mice, other vermin gnawing/chewing on
cables.
In the room: physical damage from being stepped on, damage by floor
cleaning equipment, etc.
Purchase a new cable of known good quality and swap it in and out with
existing cables connecting wall jack to modem, modem to computer, etc.
SURGE PROTECTORS: Partially fried.
Partially fried surge protectors will have you going nuts chasing
intermittent problems, especially those that are used on the phone
lines. Many high-end power bars and UPSs have phone line surge
protectors built in -- you see those two phone jacks on these devices.
If you are using any phone line surge protectors, try disconnecting
them and see if your problem clears up.
PHONE JACKS: Misconnected equipment.
If your premises are wired with a dual phone jack system where you
have dial tone on both jacks but, one is labelled "Voice" and the
other is labelled "Data", make sure your phones, answering machines,
fax machines, etc., are plugged into the one labelled "Voice" and only
your modem is plugged into the one labelled "Data". (People make the
mistake of plugging in the Fax machine into the "Data" jack. It
should be plugged into the "Voice" jack.)
FAULTY TELECOM EQUIPMENT:
Disconnect all your telephones, fax machines, answering machines,
leaving just your modem connected to see if the problem disappears.
If the problem disappears, plug the other devices back in, one at a
time, until the problem reappears. The last device plugged in when
the problem reappears is the culprit.
NOISY LINES:
Pick up your telephone, dial a single digit, any digit, to make the
dial tone disappear, then LISTEN. What do you hear? If you hear
anything other than total silence, such as pops, clicks, static, have
your phone company fix the problem.
MISINSTALLED ALARM MONITORING SYSTEMS/
ENTERPHONE SYSTEMS:
The goofballs that install these things tend to hook them up to the
first pair of wires they find that give dial tone, and not necessarily
to the pair of wires supplying service to the owner of the alarm
system.
If you have one of these systems, you may have it hooked up on your
"Data" side of the service instead of on the "Voice" side of the
service where it should be.
If there are other tenants in the same building, you may have one of
your neighbor's systems hooked on to your phone service.
You should have the service circuit traced from your utility poll
right to your modem to make sure nothing else is hooked on to it.
OTHER HUMANS:
Those cables connecting the wall jack to modem and modem to computer,
etc., are they the cables that were there, or are they the cables
that were swapped by someone whose cables didn't work?
I'm quite certain that there are a whole bunch other things that
skipped my mind at the moment but, this should give you some clues
where else you should look.
| Quote: |
Running 6.1, with named, which also acts as master for a private TLD
behind a firewall. Configuration files untouched for a year or more,
been working fine since the upgrade to 6.1 a month or two back.
Today, I suddenly found that DNS responses from the net often look
wrong. Using ethereal, I see that returned DNS answer packets often come
back with success, but no result records, which isn't good news.
Sometimes ethereal flags a 'format error', whatever that is; such
packets still have no results, and also no question either. The private
TLD works fine - it's only stuff from the net that's affected, but /not/
everything.
sockstat reports named is running with port 53 open on various
addresses. I've restarted named and even rebooted to no avail.
If I remove 127.0.0.1 from resolv.conf, and replace with my ISP's name
servers, DNS from the net at large works just fine (although obviously
my private TLD now fails).
On the offchance the problem was the NIC to the cable modem, I've
changed that; no joy though. Anyway, if there were a bad fault there,
I'd expect to see other problems as well.
This one seems to fall heavily into the "can't happen" category, and I'm
stuck for ideas: would /very/ much appreciate pointers about where to look.
Thanks in advance.
--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Scott
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 138
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:06 am Post subject:
Re: major DNS hiccup
|
|
|
Speechless wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:09:50 GMT, Mike Scott
usenet.10@spam.stopper.scottsonline.org.uk> wrote:
This was all working fine until this afternoon - when I did nothing and
it just decided to malfunction.
Software doesn't just "break" on its own so, I suspect a hardware
problem.
You seem to have looked at everything except your cables.
..... |
Thanks, but as it's only DNS that's not working, I'm pretty sure it's
not the h/ware infrastructure.
As you say, s/ware doesn't "just break" - so someone has changed
something somewhere. I'm pretty sure the problem's not here - as I've
noted elsewhere, I don't seem to be losing UDP packets, and the
checksums are OK; I've changed /everything/, including the type of name
server software, up to to the cable modem, beyond which point I can't
go. And the problem persists. The /only/ thing that seems to make it go
away is to not use my own caching name server; using my ISP's does work.
--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chronos
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 174
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:36 am Post subject:
Re: major DNS hiccup
|
|
|
After replacing Mike Scott with a small shell script on Tuesday 11 Jul
2006 09:06, the following appeared on stdout:
| Quote: | Thanks, but as it's only DNS that's not working
|
And then only if you're doing fully recursive lookups. Is your hints
file up to date? Have you tried an alternate root such as ORSN?
--
Chronos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Scott
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 138
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:13 pm Post subject:
Re: major DNS hiccup
|
|
|
Chronos wrote:
| Quote: | After replacing Mike Scott with a small shell script on Tuesday 11 Jul
2006 09:06, the following appeared on stdout:
Thanks, but as it's only DNS that's not working
And then only if you're doing fully recursive lookups. Is your hints
file up to date?
|
Yes.
| Quote: | Have you tried an alternate root such as ORSN?
|
I have now. Same problem (sample of 2 failure, 1 working).
But thanks for the ideas. Somehow I get the most horrible feeling this
will all be down to something incredibly obvious that I've just been
missing totally.....
--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Haley
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:07 pm Post subject:
Re: major DNS hiccup
|
|
|
Mike Scott <usenet.10@spam.stopper.scottsonline.org.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Chronos wrote:
After replacing Mike Scott with a small shell script on Tuesday 11 Jul
2006 09:06, the following appeared on stdout:
Thanks, but as it's only DNS that's not working
And then only if you're doing fully recursive lookups. Is your hints
file up to date?
Yes.
Have you tried an alternate root such as ORSN?
I have now. Same problem (sample of 2 failure, 1 working).
But thanks for the ideas. Somehow I get the most horrible feeling this
will all be down to something incredibly obvious that I've just been
missing totally.....
|
It's NTL. I'm an NTL customer too, in Cambridge.
At the end of last week my local named started to fail in precisely
the same way that you describe. I struggled with the local named
config for a while, and then did the thing I should have done at the
start: I pulled the NTL cable modem and plugged in a Demon ADSL modem.
Hey presto: no changes at all to my configuration, everything started
to work perfectly. The only thing changed was the ISP!
My guess is that NTL are doing something totally clueless.
Andrew. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chronos
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 174
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject:
Re: major DNS hiccup
|
|
|
After replacing Mike Scott with a small shell script on Tuesday 11 Jul
2006 15:13, the following appeared on stdout:
| Quote: | But thanks for the ideas. Somehow I get the most horrible feeling
this will all be down to something incredibly obvious that I've just
been missing totally.....
|
Can you install the dns/dnstracer port and invoke it with the -v flag
(such as dnstracer -v -c -o -q A -s <your server> uk.yahoo.com) and
look through the output? It may give you some idea of where the queries
are dying.
-v: Be verbose;
-c: Turn off local caching;
-o: Show a summary;
-q: Query type;
-s: Server to query.
You may also want to try -4 to use IPv4 only if you have v6 enabled.
--
Chronos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Haley
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject:
Re: major DNS hiccup
|
|
|
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Scott <usenet.10@spam.stopper.scottsonline.org.uk> wrote:
Chronos wrote:
After replacing Mike Scott with a small shell script on Tuesday 11 Jul
2006 09:06, the following appeared on stdout:
Thanks, but as it's only DNS that's not working
And then only if you're doing fully recursive lookups. Is your hints
file up to date?
Yes.
Have you tried an alternate root such as ORSN?
I have now. Same problem (sample of 2 failure, 1 working).
But thanks for the ideas. Somehow I get the most horrible feeling this
will all be down to something incredibly obvious that I've just been
missing totally.....
|
FWIW, my failures began at 11:03:54 on Jul 6.
Mike, can you have a look at your named logs, and see when it started?
Andrew.
Jul 6 11:03:54 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving 'gmail.com' (in 'gmail.com'?): 216.239.34.10#53
Jul 6 11:03:54 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving '174.176.132.209.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org' (in 'sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org'?): 193.70.192.64#53
Jul 6 11:03:54 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving '190.182.233.64.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org' (in 'sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org'?): 193.70.192.64#53
Jul 6 11:03:54 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving 'rbldns4.sorbs.net' (in 'sorbs.NET'?): 213.155.150.206#53
Jul 6 11:03:54 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving 'rbldns4.sorbs.net' (in 'sorbs.NET'?): 63.209.15.211#53
Jul 6 11:03:54 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving '190.182.233.64.sa-other.bondedsender.org' (in 'sa-other.bondedsender.org'?): 64.92.165.122#5
3
Jul 6 11:03:54 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving '174.176.132.209.sa-trusted.bondedsender.org' (in 'sa-trusted.bondedsender.org'?): 64.92.165.
122#53
Jul 6 11:03:54 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving 'rbldns4.sorbs.net' (in 'sorbs.NET'?): 217.70.177.40#53
Jul 6 11:03:54 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving 'rbldns4.sorbs.net' (in 'sorbs.NET'?): 209.97.199.116#53
Jul 6 11:07:21 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving 'backmx.iol.cz' (in 'iol.cz'?): 194.228.2.1#53
Jul 6 11:07:21 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving 'backmx.iol.cz' (in 'iol.cz'?): 194.228.2.61#53
Jul 6 11:07:21 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving 'backmx.iol.cz' (in 'iol.cz'?): 194.228.2.1#53
Jul 6 11:07:21 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving 'backmx.iol.cz' (in 'iol.cz'?): 194.228.2.61#53
Jul 6 11:07:21 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving 'backmx.iol.cz' (in 'iol.cz'?): 194.228.2.61#53
Jul 6 11:07:21 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving 'backmx.iol.cz' (in 'iol.cz'?): 194.228.2.1#53
Jul 6 11:07:21 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving 'backmx.iol.cz' (in 'iol.cz'?): 194.228.2.1#53
Jul 6 11:07:21 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving 'backmx.iol.cz' (in 'iol.cz'?): 194.228.2.61#53
Jul 6 11:07:21 mammoth named[2671]: lame server resolving 'backmx.iol.cz' (in 'iol.cz'?): 194.228.2.61#53
.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:49 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Credit Card | Credit Reports | Free Advertising | Pisos Denia | Mortgage Calculator
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Unix/Linux blog |
electronics forum |
medicine forum |
science forum |
|
|
Privacy Policy
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
*nix
»
BSD
»
FreeBSD
