Linux DNS Client Against Windows 2000 DNS Server

Hi everybody,

How weird is this?

I installed a Linux server for the company Intranet (SuSE 9.1 Pro) and
gave it a static IP address. I set up the Linux box to use our Windows
2000 Active Directory server for its DNS and that is where it gets
weird. It almost works. DNS works fine as far as external (internet)
addreses are concerned. They are resolvable and pingable. It is only
internal addresses which are problematic and even these are only
partially broken. "nslookup" works fine on an internal address when
run from the linux box. "host" works fine too. "dig" only works if you
give it a fully qualified domain name to look up but fails on an
unqualified one. The really annoying thing is that the command line
utilities like "ping" can't resolve internal addresses at all, whether
they are fully qualified or not, which makes life rather difficult.

Before anybody asks, I don't think I have done anything stupid setting
it up. There is only one DNS server listed and nsswitch.conf is set up
to use DNS for host resolution.

Does anybody have a clue what could be going on? Does anybody else
have similar issues, or must I have done something silly to mess it
up? I know that people mistrust the Windows 2000 DNS server but, given
that "nslookup" and "host" can resolve against it, you would think
that everything else could too? Do they use different methods to query
the DNS server?

Any suggestions for resolving this would be appreciated.

Regards,

Daniel Rigal MSc.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:20:56 -0700, Daniel Rigal wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> How weird is this?
>
"dig" only works if you
> give it a fully qualified domain name to look up but fails on an
> unqualified one.

That's right - IIRC dig always requires a FQDN.

> The really annoying thing is that the command line utilities like "ping"
> can't resolve internal addresses at all, whether they are fully
> qualified or not, which makes life rather difficult.

I take it that your resolv.conf file is correct. Are your resolver
libraries OK?


--
Gareth Ansell
UNIX Team
Computing Services
Coventry University

I have, more or less, the same problem. Only I am using WYP Sp1a Which
doesn't the Windows->Linux problem. But I do have the same problem
between SuSE 9.1 and SuSE 9.0. I believe it is caused by SuSE 9.1
using only IPv6 and addressing interfaces by a hardware address
instead of an interface name. I say this because after having
installed SuSE 9.1 Pro on another machine the problem no longer exists
between those two. I am not sure about WY2K, but the problem would
probably go away if you there would be a IPv6 path.

(b.t.w. I noticed that I suddenly have another route added (to
169.254.0.0 -> to internal card) which has nothing to do with my
network; do you have the same?)

Regards,
Robert A. Reissaus
(E-Mail Removed)
IBM/Informix Consultants fot the BeNeLux
---


(E-Mail Removed) (Daniel Rigal) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> Hi everybody,
>
> How weird is this?
>
> I installed a Linux server for the company Intranet (SuSE 9.1 Pro) and
> gave it a static IP address. I set up the Linux box to use our Windows
> 2000 Active Directory server for its DNS and that is where it gets
> weird. It almost works. DNS works fine as far as external (internet)
> addreses are concerned. They are resolvable and pingable. It is only
> internal addresses which are problematic and even these are only
> partially broken. "nslookup" works fine on an internal address when
> run from the linux box. "host" works fine too. "dig" only works if you
> give it a fully qualified domain name to look up but fails on an
> unqualified one. The really annoying thing is that the command line
> utilities like "ping" can't resolve internal addresses at all, whether
> they are fully qualified or not, which makes life rather difficult.
>
> Before anybody asks, I don't think I have done anything stupid setting
> it up. There is only one DNS server listed and nsswitch.conf is set up
> to use DNS for host resolution.
>
> Does anybody have a clue what could be going on? Does anybody else
> have similar issues, or must I have done something silly to mess it
> up? I know that people mistrust the Windows 2000 DNS server but, given
> that "nslookup" and "host" can resolve against it, you would think
> that everything else could too? Do they use different methods to query
> the DNS server?
>
> Any suggestions for resolving this would be appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel Rigal MSc.

On 15 Jun 2004 05:19:21 -0700,
Robert A. Reissaus <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>
> (b.t.w. I noticed that I suddenly have another route added (to
> 169.254.0.0 -> to internal card) which has nothing to do with my
> network; do you have the same?)
>


If a MSwindows system is configured for DHCP and it can't find a DHCP
server it will use one of these 169.254 IP addresses selected at random.
By using the ARP protocol, or something similar, duplicate IP numbers
are avoided.

Such addresses are supposed to be used on the local ethernet section only,
so the route is there to allow your system to communicate with these
MSwin systems.


Villy

Gareth Ansell <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > The really annoying thing is that the command line utilities like "ping"
> > can't resolve internal addresses at all, whether they are fully
> > qualified or not, which makes life rather difficult.
>
> I take it that your resolv.conf file is correct.

Yes, I think so. It is very simple:

nameserver 192.168.100.1
search ourdomain.local

The IP address is the correct IP of the Windows 2000 DNS and Active
Directory server. ourdomain.local is the correct name of the DNS/AD
domain.

I added Read access for "everybody" to the ACL for the local DNS
domain on the Windows 2000 server. That didn't help, even after
restarting the DNS service.

nsswitch.conf is set up to resolve hosts through "files dns". Swapping
it round to "dns files" doesn't make any difference.

> Are your resolver
> libraries OK?

How can I tell? I have not fiddled with them. They are the standard
ones for SUSE 9.1 (fully patched).

Regards,

Daniel.

DNS servers and searchorder should be specified in /etc/resolve.conf


Daniel Rigal wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> How weird is this?
>
> I installed a Linux server for the company Intranet (SuSE 9.1 Pro) and
> gave it a static IP address. I set up the Linux box to use our Windows
> 2000 Active Directory server for its DNS and that is where it gets
> weird. It almost works. DNS works fine as far as external (internet)
> addreses are concerned. They are resolvable and pingable. It is only
> internal addresses which are problematic and even these are only
> partially broken. "nslookup" works fine on an internal address when
> run from the linux box. "host" works fine too. "dig" only works if you
> give it a fully qualified domain name to look up but fails on an
> unqualified one. The really annoying thing is that the command line
> utilities like "ping" can't resolve internal addresses at all, whether
> they are fully qualified or not, which makes life rather difficult.
>
> Before anybody asks, I don't think I have done anything stupid setting
> it up. There is only one DNS server listed and nsswitch.conf is set up
> to use DNS for host resolution.
>
> Does anybody have a clue what could be going on? Does anybody else
> have similar issues, or must I have done something silly to mess it
> up? I know that people mistrust the Windows 2000 DNS server but, given
> that "nslookup" and "host" can resolve against it, you would think
> that everything else could too? Do they use different methods to query
> the DNS server?
>
> Any suggestions for resolving this would be appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel Rigal MSc.