On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 06:08:04PM +0000, Paul Howarth wrote: > >; <<>> DiG 9.2.5 <<>> @192.168.0.253 www.uit.no > >; (1 server found) > >;; global options: printcmd > >;; Got answer: > >;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 39902 > >;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 > > > >;; QUESTION SECTION: > >;www.uit.no. IN A > > > >;; ANSWER SECTION: > >www.uit.no. 10000 IN A 129.242.5.89 > > > >;; Query time: 4 msec > >;; SERVER: 192.168.0.253#53(192.168.0.253) > >;; WHEN: Tue Nov 1 18:31:51 2005 > >;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 44 > > Hmm, that's interesting. Your nameserver appears to be returning bad > data, though curiously the first answer was the right one in this case. No, I don't think so... The address returned is the same as in the first query; the answer is correct. I believe the reason the data is different is because the first query showed authoritative data that the name server looked up, whereas the second query returned non-authoritative data that the name server had cached. There seems to be nothing wrong with this -- the client got the same address in both cases. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
Attachment:
pgpE2GSyZUSl0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
