Suse 9.0, resolv.con, and multiple name servers
I am running Suse 9.0. It appears that the system does not honor multiple nameserver entries in /etc/resolv.conf. My /etc/resolv.conf looks as below: nameserver a.b.c.d nameserver z.y.x.u The two name servers host different zones and do not talk to one another. It appears that on my Suse system, only the first nameserver entry is honored. I can successfully resolve names on in the zone hosted by the first DNS server only. I verified this by switching the order of nameserver entries in /etc/resolv.conf . Has anyone else seen this? The only work around I think of at the moment is to setup a "caching only" name server on my Suse machine and then list the two name servers I need as forwarding addresses. I hate running a full fledged name server just for DNS resolution, but I cannot think of any other decent workaround to what appears to be a broken implementation of /etc/resolv.conf. Thanks in advance for any help, --Moby They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. -- Pastor Martin Niemöller
On Monday 15 March 2004 19:13, Mobeen Azhar wrote:
I am running Suse 9.0. It appears that the system does not honor multiple nameserver entries in /etc/resolv.conf. My /etc/resolv.conf looks as below:
nameserver a.b.c.d nameserver z.y.x.u
First off I'm not a true techie/geek. Just a bystander. But I try to pay some attention at least. My local techie did look into all this, pissing off DNS/ BIND guys while doing so -): This is "how it works" according to the specs. You can't have multiple *responding* isolated DNS:s and expect it to work. A Linux boxen will *only* traverse a client DNS servers listing if there is *no response*. You do need to have DNS:es talk to each other? to pass you up the list, ehem..at this stage I'll be quiet since I haven't actually setup a DNS.. (a caching only is on the to-do list). I think you know what I'm trying to say though. And yes, "my local geek" was mighty upset when he found out, weird as it is.. this behaviour is from libc/glic (he is a developer thus refusing the answer at first, and he dug until he knew why). This is nothing to play with.. in other words. The reason why this came as a real surpise, was that indeed our WIndows clients *did* traverse the DNS list if it gets a.."bad answer?" from the first DNS....you follow me on this? PS: If I make any BIND guru's upset, since I obvioulsy don't grasp this fully: please forgive me... jk -- Suse Linux 9.0 | 2.4.21-166-smp4G | KDE 3.1.4 | XFree86 v4.3.0.1
participants (2)
-
Jaan Kold
-
Mobeen Azhar