Ric Moore: > Sorry if I came across like Barney on Andy Griffith. This one little > machine is it here at wayward4now.net. Nothing fancy, just this machine > hooked to a DSL modem, with BellSouth.net and I have a static IP > address. > hostname: iam.wayward4now.net <---<chuckles at cutesy name> > domainname: wayward4now.net > static IP: 70.145.234.214 > netmask: 255.255.255.0 > gateway: 65.14.234.23 > search dns: dns.asm.bellsouth.net > primary DNS: 205.152.37.23 > secondary : 205.152.132.23 If you do something like "dig google.com @205.152.37.23", do you get a quick response? Do it at least twice, the first response will be slow, subsequent ones will work from a cache. Likewise, try against the secondary DNS server address. > This stuff is a piece of cake. I can eat therein. But, the whirlygig > network setup thingie keeps adding hostnames to the localhost line in > hosts. I edit it out, it may come up, it may not. I still haven't found > bind-config and rpm sez I don't have it installed (that bugzilla > report) When I try to de-activate eth0 more often than not, it won't. I think you're fixating on bind-config. It doesn't play a role in your hosts file, nor activating ethernet interfaces. > So, I go back into the DSL modem, set it back to not-pasthrough, crank > up DHCP on this end and now I can email. I STILL get DNS lookup failures > though, even with DHCP! WTF? Regularly. DHCP just configures your side of the network with the data that the DHCP server says to use (as you supplied above). If there's a wonky DHCP server configuration, you might get told to use a DNS server that's incorrect, or not even get some of the information that you need. > I have the NetWork Manager and NetWork Dispatcher running. Look at this, it's BACK! > > [root@iam etc]# more hosts > # Do not remove the following line, or various programs > # that require network functionality will fail. > 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost iam.wayward4now.net So, one of them is most likely the culprit, not BIND. I thought they were used for something like wireless? Or, at least for switching network configurations around for people who use multiple different networks, but not simultaneously (e.g. work, home, internet cafes). If you're not doing either, you can probably do without them. I don't have them, but then I have a modem/router between me and the ISP. > Shouldn't there be a 192.168.0.X entry here? Only if you have a LAN using those addresses. Or, if you want to fake things as if you had, giving your machine an interface with a consistent address. -- (Currently running FC4, occasionally trying FC5.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
