From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9791381F3 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 06:31:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C1A49E0B8F; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 06:31:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f170.google.com (mail-ve0-f170.google.com [209.85.128.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD190E0B83 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 06:31:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 15so6441950vea.29 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 23:31:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=1kdWoEu7vzUe/l0gezWkjETC1na5VvSGA7K06kCH3BM=; b=bJcUhgw7rkw8ref2sCIVL0D4WmUYCoyfH4vZTAeSiAXeVLqF/ky1Zf77WrsU3LDRGH qRJ3yQs9dPNdAFqugJ65nNtMIILxLWQRvdP816pt+0p+NPvq5AZjFZmm0qo6ktJ/qf0i ncJXKmQM7iIVc6YDwAXctjRPlSf/TzE1osp+DbNhlzm6fcRr+vdnfam8IlDlcMX4z3lS hg4tUiCN6WGp+icbr+9OlgRciD+wqdUBZP2bNzeN2lOV+cpppVY723TteIRhTrN7GfWo nS6Fuwic54MN0UJAxsvhaoFG9u5cRfVWCfR/7ukNEkakbhOn9XLVibkju0R2b2KxETkP elWg== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.169.203 with SMTP id a11mr1482705vcz.26.1376375477753; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 23:31:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.59.8.193 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 23:31:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5208A673.5060902@gmail.com> References: <201308042057.57917.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <201308051107.03261.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <5208A673.5060902@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:31:17 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Browsers cannot access WWW while ping and host utilities work as expected. From: gevisz To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 068e4049-f59b-4560-b3b0-8bf4e9530adf X-Archives-Hash: 28fac56550fab93cd09b32d07f594f9f 2013/8/12 Alan McKinnon : > On 12/08/2013 09:13, gevisz wrote: >> The response of the first router contained an error that prevented all the >> other applications to use it, the system knew about it (for example from >> the output of the host utility) but, nevertheless did not proceeded with >> the next router listed in resolv.conf. >> >> I do undersand that this may be because of the layered structure of the >> networked software. But, nevertheless, I think that something is fundamentally >> wrong with this. > > What kind of error did you get? As I have already wrote it earlier, with three different DNS in /etc/resolv.conf and /etc/conf.d/net files, the host utility correctly reported IP address of a site (eg, www.google.com) but added the following message: ;; Warning: query response not set With only the first (my local DNS) in /etc/resolv.conf and /etc/conf.d/net files, the output of the host utility was as follows: # host www.google.com www.google.com has address 74.125.232.52 www.google.com has address 74.125.232.48 www.google.com has address 74.125.232.49 www.google.com has address 74.125.232.50 www.google.com has address 74.125.232.51 ;; Warning: query response not set ;; Warning: query response not set Host www.google.com not found: 4(NOTIMP) In both cases above no internet application (eg, links or firefox) could convert site names to IP adresses and only after deleting the first (local) DNS from /etc/resolv.conf and /etc/conf.d/net files, internet applications started to work as expected (and the host utility, in this case, returned no error or warning message) That have proved to myself that "The response of the first router contained an error that prevented all the other applications to use it, the system knew about it (for example from the output of the host utility) but, nevertheless, did not proceeded with the next router listed in resolv.conf [or /etc/conf.d/net]. I do undersand that this may be because of the layered structure of the networked software. But, nevertheless, I think that something is fundamentally wrong with this." > If complete garbage came back, I'm not sure what the resolver does with > that (oddly enough, I never tested that) > > The more usual case is you get a proper DNS result of NXDOMAIN which > indicates the query is valid, but the entry is not in DNS. It's > pointless trying another cache as per DNS, they should all then return > that result. > > This is why the router did not try the other entries in resolv.conf - > that usually only happens when a cache does not respond. So the > behaviour you saw is probably correct albeit not the behaviour you wanted. > > > -- > Alan McKinnon > alan.mckinnon@gmail.com > >