os/2 DNS resolution error

[Jim Moe]

Hello,
os/2 server v4.50 fp2
os/2 client v4.52, ecs 1.2, ...
Recently we have had trouble with the Internet name resolution service
on the os/2 server. It shows up for a particular site name:
<www.google.com>. There are other .google.com sites that exhibit the same
problem; <google.com> itself is okay. It fails to resolve and takes a
loooong time doing so.
Using IPTrace shows that the os/2 server (named) is resolving
<www.google.com> to <www.l.google.com> and sending it back to the client
requester. The client sees that the returned value <www.l.google.com> is
not a valid numeric IP address, i.e., invalid; it then adds the "domain"
value from <resolv2> yielding (in our case) <www.google.com.sma.com> and
requests a resolution again. It is the second request that takes so long:
a timeout.
As you may imagine browsing the web where all kinds of sites refer to
Google makes the experience quite trying.

The solution is to remove the "domain" entry in the <resolv2> file.
Is there a better solution?
Is Google correct in sending back another site name rather than a
numeric address?

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

[Bob Eager]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 07:45:09 UTC, Jim Moe
<jmm-list...@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:

> Is Google correct in sending back another site name rather than a
> numeric address?

Yes. www.google.com is a CNAME entry, basically an alias. It returns
another name, which then would resolve to an address.

Is this the (very) old OS/2 named? Or the much newer port?

I'm not sure if there is a configuration item governing this, but
somehow I doubt it.

Is the client using the standard resolver library? If it's doing its own
thing (as, I believe, Mozilla does) then it's probably broken.

[Jim Moe]

On 09/05/09 12:45 am, Jim Moe wrote:
> Recently we have had trouble with the Internet name resolution service
> on the os/2 server. It shows up for a particular site name:
> <www.google.com>. There are other .google.com sites that exhibit the same
> problem; <google.com> itself is okay. It fails to resolve and takes a
> loooong time doing so.
>

I installed BIND v9.6.1 from Paul Smedley's site. It took a couple of
hours of going over the samples and online help, and now we have a modern
DNS server! Yay!

[Dave Yeo]

On 09/05/09 11:13 pm, Jim Moe wrote:
> I installed BIND v9.6.1 from Paul Smedley's site. It took a couple of
> hours of going over the samples and online help, and now we have a modern
> DNS server! Yay!
>

And probably much more secure.
Dave