Re: /etc/hosts - how does that file work?? - was weird nfs issues.
- From: Tim Judd <tajudd@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 22:44:38 -0600
On 6/4/09, Peter <fbsdq@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thursday 04 June 2009 20:48:21 Peter wrote:from /etc/hosts?
iH,
This all started with NFS not mounting at boot....so, testing in VMs:
<snip>
Why is ping using one IP, and ssh/mount_nfs/showmount using another IP
be
Q: Where is described that name resolution for A or PTR records should
returned in a fixed order and that a consumer should always use thefirst
onespecified otherwise. Applications may sort/pick at their own leisure.
returned?
A: Nowhere. Name servers are encouraged to do round-robin returns if not
--
Mel
I do not think /etc/hosts does round robin, I always assumed first match
wins...DNS/bind I would understand...
Why does ping always return the 172.20.6.1 address,
and ftp,nc,ssh,telnet,fetch _always_ uses the 116 address?
I would assume at least sometimes it would hit the 172 address with
anything besides ping - but it only ping hits the 172 address...
If so, I'd guess there would be consistency between ping lookups and
'telnet/ssh/etc' lookups...
Why if the 116.23.45.3 last octet is bumped up, everything _always_
returns the 172 address?
client# grep server /etc/hosts
172.20.6.1 server.test server
116.23.45.5 server.test server
client# telnet server
Trying 172.20.6.1...
telnet: connect to address 172.20.6.1: Connection refused
Trying 116.23.45.5...
/etc/hosts - 'server' changed to
116.23.45.3:
client# telnet server
Trying 116.23.45.3...
telnet: connect to address 116.23.45.3: Operation timed out
Trying 172.20.6.1...
telnet: connect to address 172.20.6.1: Connection refused
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host
if server has ip>116.23.45.3, it always uses the 172 address first...
but ping always uses the 172...
even if third entry is added into /etc/hosts - nothing ever uses it as the
first/primary IP.
Is there an algorithm based on IP/program being used and the returned IP?
I can't sit and watch this thread anymore. Something itchin' to say:
DNS, who can handle multiple A records in an optional round-robin
design, is perfectly fine to assign multiple A records to a resource.
/etc/hosts, which as always existed (back when the Internet was
created/new), was a unique record source only. Having oddities in
/etc/hosts is expected IMHO when a "mistake" like multiple resources
assigned different records.
What's to stop you from creating slightly different records in
/etc/hosts? Whats to stop you from hitting 'privserver' and
'pubserver', for private and public IPs respectively.
why are you so hung up on dual IPs for a single host? would dnsmasq
provide a solution to dual A records for one resource?
I'll help, when I can. but forcing this on /etc/hosts is a dead end.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Date representation as YY/DDD or YYYY/DDD
- Next by Date: Re: Installing latest version of LaTeX
- Previous by thread: Re: /etc/hosts - how does that file work?? - was weird nfs issues.
- Next by thread: Re: /etc/hosts - how does that file work?? - was weird nfs issues.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
