ns_forw: All possible A RR's lame. HELP!!

Barry Margolin barmar at genuity.net
Fri Jan 5 20:28:05 UTC 2001


In article <9358rt$13v at pub3.rc.vix.com>,
Boris Reisig <boris at microtrader.com> wrote:
>Just recently I have gotten a weird error. I have a dns server [lets say
>dns.computerworld.com (204.112.152.123] and we have are dns hosting company
>[lets say panther.com (204.100.1.11)]. Its been working now for a long time
>and now all of a sudden, its not resolving. I use nslookup and query the
>domain. Panther.com=24.100.100.100
>
>nslookup
>Server: computerworld.com
>Address: 204.112.152.123
>set q=any
>panther.com
>
>Non-Authoritative answer:
>panther.com    nameserver = dns.computerworld.com
>panther.com    nameserver = dns.fredry.com
>
>Authoritative answers can be found from:
>panther.com    nameserver = dns.computerworld.com
>panther.com    nameserver = dns.fredry.com
>dns.computerworld.com  internet address = 204.112.152.123
>dns.fredry.com internet address = 204.100.1.11
>
>ok, That looks fine [btw: the ips im using arent ours]
>
>I look in my messages file [im using slackware with bind 8.2.2p7]
>jan 5 11:31:24 dns named[4884]: ns_forw: query(panther.com) contains our
>address (dns.computerworld.com:204.112.152.123)
>jan 5 11:31:25 dns named[4884]: Lame server on 'panther.com' (in
>'panther.com'?): [204.100.1.11] 'dns.fredry.com'
>jan 5 11:31:30 dns named[4884]: ns_forw: query(panther.com) All possible A
>RR's lame

I'm a little confused: You said your server is dns.computerworld.com, and
the first log message is consistent with that.  But the SOA record says
that dns.fredry.com is the master server for the domain, while you have
"type master" in your named.conf.

Anyway, the important log messages to look at are the ones that come right
after restarting named.  They'll report errors that were encountered while
trying to load the zone file.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.



More information about the bind-users mailing list