Hot answers tagged nslookup
Basically, it's what the name says it is. An authoritative answer comes from a nameserver that is considered authoritative for the domain which it's returning a record for (one of the nameservers in the list for the domain you did a lookup on), and a non-authoritative answer comes from anywhere else (a nameserver not in the list for the domain you did a ...
Not really, no. This is all about the difference between forward and reverse DNS lookups. A forward lookup is the standard name->IP lookup. So, you would have to know all the names in advance. What you want is to do an IP->name lookup, but somehow get all the names you've applied in your Apache config and in DNS as A records (or CNAMES or whatever). What ...
First start nslookup without parameters, then type set type=txt, then type the domain name. nslookup <enter> set type=txt <enter> villagevines.com Example C:\Users\wilfried>nslookup Default Server: mydnsserver Address: 192.168.1.1 > set type=txt > villagevines.com Server: mydnsserver Address: 192.168.1.1 *** No text (TXT) ...
The answer you've received is essentially a cached or forwarded response from your local DNS server. Basically, a non-authoritative name server is one that does not contain the records for the zone being queried; your local DNS is likely not going to have Google's name records, for example. You can get the name servers that are authoritative for a given ...
You need to use an = after -type: nslookup -type=srv _ldap._tcp.DOMAINNAME
I believe nslookup is used to test a DNS server itself, as opposed to utilizing your HOSTS file. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/200525 seems to indicate as much. Try just a simple ping. Does ping myMachine.MyDnsSuffix resolve to the loopback address you have specified in your HOSTS file?
It's the default behaviour of dig not to use the search-option. From the manual page: +[no]search Use [do not use] the search list defined by the searchlist or domain directive in resolv.conf (if any). The search list is not used by default. Edit: Just add +search to make it work, like dig +search myhost.
You actually almost had it. On both window (at least my Win7 box I have here) and Ubuntu you would do nslookup -type=SRV _ldap._tcp.mydomain.com (notice the single dash)
It appears from what you're saying that the request for windows.cs is going to the ISPs DNS server now and again. The nxdomain result is then cached by Windows' DNS client, and thus used for any retries with a web browser, ping etc. Clearing the cache (ipconfig /flushdns) should force the Windows DNS client to retry the query, but there's no guarantee it ...
It's not possible to do it with the DNS protocol itself, because typically there's only one PTR record for each IP address, even though there may be many A records pointing at that IP address. However some companies (e.g. http://www.ip-adress.com/) have managed to compile databases containing what you're after by storing the results of a whole load of DNS ...
Nslookup will try to resolve the name for the ip address of the DNS server configured as the primary DNS server on the client by performing a reverse lookup of the ip address. If you don't have a rDNS zone set up for your network/subnet you'll get the "server unknown" message as nslookup will be unable to resolve the name for the ip address. It's not an ...
Sadly, the answer here is "it depends". The factors it depends on will vary with the domain and how the owning servers are set up as well as how your own local DNS is set up. First, for example, regarding the NS records returned: it is perfectly allowed to randomise the order in which those records are returned, so the order may differ each time you ...
You can get a full list of entries in a zone with a zone transfer; you'd need to allow this for authorized systems in your DNS server. Once that's done, you can run the transfer and grep the result: dig axfr localdomain.com | grep -i miller
Multiple A records for a single host lookup is commonly known as round-robin DNS. It is a feature It is related to high-availability and load-sharing Yes Be advised early on that round-robin DNS is at best a mixed-bag. For more information, please consult the following resources: http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch9/rr.html ...
Your server isn't returning a reverse lookup for its name. That's why you're seeing "Unknown" there. You'll need to create the appropriate reverse lookup zone to allow your server to reverse-resolve its own IP address back to its name.
Neglecting to remove the old address is exactly what happened. It's not something that would occur when the old record is still in cache when the new one is added or something like that - a different new answer always fully replaced an old answer for a RR in a cache. There's a record for the old address somewhere in the zone file, and a record for the new ...
You've configured the client to lookup against your internal DNS for its primary, and an external DNS server as a secondary? You have a race condition; if the internal DNS happens to be too slow to respond, then the client gets an unusable response from the public DNS server. ping is using the cached response from the lookup against the external DNS ...
On the CentOS box I have to hand dig +short www.google.com 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11 18.104.22.168 22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52 If you only want one address then dig +short www.google.com | head -1 or dig +short www.google.com | tail -1
You're not finding a lot of articles describing what you're seeing, I'm guessing, because the vast majority of the Active Directory deployments aren't using IPv6. The addresses displayed in your nslookup output show me that you are definitely using IPv6 (which also makes sense given Comcast as your ISP). Your clients are getting IPv6 DNS from your ISP (a ...
You should have a look at how DNS works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System. Every domain is managed by authoritative name servers, and Yahoo server are not the authoritative ones for the stackoverflow.com domain; what's happening here is, when you ask them for info about a domain they are not authoritative for, they in turn ask the ...
I have no ideea why but if you add an IP of a nameser at the end it will work. I have added google's dns name in this case: nslookup -type=TXT villagevines.com 184.108.40.206 It can be your local DNS service. HTH next time when you need to query your TXT records.
dig wants the '-x' flag for reverse lookups on an IP. Alternately, you can use the full form, 'dig PTR 220.127.116.11.in-addr.arpa.'
RFC 1035 says: MNAME The of the name server that was the original or primary source of data for this zone. although in practise this MNAME field in the SOA is mostly unused these days. However if you're using DNS dynamic updates then it must refer to the name of the DNS server which is to receive the dynamic update messages. See also this ...
A name server will not, by design, let you search a zone or query what zones it is authoritative for. Beyond the obvious reason of reducing attack vectors (you can't make a HTTP/1.1 request to a host if you don't know its name), there is a very good reason for this: a zone can contain wildcards itself, so asking for every host in such a zone is like dividing ...
You can only ask a DNS-Server if it has a specific record. So, no there will be no such tool for DNS. Edit Zonetransfer is of course a possibility if it is available.
Because google has different DNS records for the root zone and the www zone.
No, you will not easily find such information from dig or any other tool that queries the DNS for a few reasons. First, NS records do not point at IP addresses, but at DNS names which in turn point to IP addresses. The distinction is important because the relationship of names to IP addresses is not 1:1, and the reverse of it is rDNS which is not an exact ...
Because the owner of the domain name set it up that way.
The way I usually see this done is by having the DNS server resolve just the FQDN, but adding the domain to the search list in the DNS config on the clients. You can push this out to the clients via DHCP. I have two networks running in this way and it just works, with no issues on Windows, Linux, or Mac.
This happens in dual stack IPv4/IPv6 environments where the machine doing a DNS lookup sends requests for AAAA and A records on the same socket, expecting to receive two replies back. This is default behavior for relatively recent versions of glibc. The Juniper firewall, however, drops the connection after the first reply comes back. The Juniper knowledge ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible