When is a DNS error not a DNS error?
WWW
A: When it's displayed by IE 5.5.
Help! I just upgraded from IE5.0 to IE5.5 SP2 ( using W2K ). Now I can't
browse to any site with IE, I get the Page cannot be displayed (DNS error)
message. But TCP/IP is OK, I can browse with Netscape, I can ping sites by
IP or by name. Http by IP doesn't work in IE either but is OK in Netscape.
I've tried googling for this message and I find other reports of similar
problems but no solution reports, some suggestions to look for duplicate
winsock components and such, I think I've done everthing short of
reinstallling TCP/IP.
No AOL involved, Norton AV installed but disabled, no firewall running, ICS
installed and working OK.
WWW
WWW
news:Xns9240DFF5E...@204.127.68.17:
Sorry for the double post and update.
I was able to uninstall IE5.5 - it restored 5.0 -- 5.0 worked -- I
repeated the installation of 5.5 and it's broken again. While I suppose I
could just use 5.0, I really would like to fix this so I can have all the
latest security patches installed.
Jon Kennedy
http://support.microsoft.com/support/ie/ie5/topics/browse/iebrowseemts.asp
Or...
Error Message: The Page Cannot Be Displayed
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q241344
Also see: http://www.mvps.org/inetexplorer/answers.htm#dns
--
Jon R. Kennedy
Charlotte, NC, USA
jken...@carolina.rr.com
"WWW" <W...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns9240DF86F...@204.127.68.17...
WWW
@tkmsftngp11:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q241344
I've gone through everything in those articles now except deleting the
the registry keys as per the second article, I did it once following the
directions in the first article, but now the second one lists more keys.
I'm not keen on doing the required uninstall/reinstall of TCP/IP yet
again without some confirmation that these keys really are the problem.
Has anyone gone through this and gotten it working following this
procedure?
Does this procedure make sense considering that Netscape and Mozilla are
still working?
( I'm referring to the paragraph starting -
"Export and delete the WinSock2 registry keys that are located in the
following registry keys:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VXD\AFVXD
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VXD\DHCP "
etc.
P.S. I've also completely uninstalled Norton AV, now.
Robert Aldwinckle
>
> A: When it's displayed by IE 5.5.
>
> Help! I just upgraded from IE5.0 to IE5.5 SP2 ( using W2K ). Now I can't
> browse to any site with IE, I get the Page cannot be displayed (DNS error)
> message. But TCP/IP is OK, I can browse with Netscape, I can ping sites by
> IP or by name. Http by IP doesn't work in IE either but is OK in Netscape.
This is not good news. I have been assuming that IE 5.5 SP2
had fixes in it that IE 6 is going to need.
Have you tried diagnosing the symptom? The problem with
that message is that it seems to represent too many different
things. E.g. is it an indication that your DNS cache is corrupt?
(in which case you should just delete your HOSTS file and issue
ipconfig /flushdns
to fix it) (Since Netscape works this case seems unlikely for you.)
Or is it something further into the rendering process that you
can only guess at by inference (unless you happen to have a
complete packet trace tool of some kind). I have suggested
that people use the statistics given by RASMon and netstat -s
(before and after differences) to try to assess if this is the case.
If you would like some help please post back some detailed
observations using the statistics I mentioned. It is frustrating
for both of us to have replies such as "I tried what you said
and it didn't work." I'd rather be ignored than see them
and ignore them if I do get them.
HTH
Robert Aldwinckle
---
WWW
news:O7hNDl4ICHA.2280@tkmsftngp12:
> "WWW" <W...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9240DF86F...@204.127.68.17...
>> When is a DNS error not a DNS error?
>>
>> A: When it's displayed by IE 5.5.
>>
>> Help! I just upgraded from IE5.0 to IE5.5 SP2 ( using W2K ). Now I
>> can't browse to any site with IE, I get the Page cannot be displayed
>> (DNS error) message. But TCP/IP is OK, I can browse with Netscape, I
>> can ping sites by IP or by name. Http by IP doesn't work in IE either
>> but is OK in Netscape.
>
>
> This is not good news. I have been assuming that IE 5.5 SP2
> had fixes in it that IE 6 is going to need.
>
> Have you tried diagnosing the symptom? The problem with
> that message is that it seems to represent too many different
> things. E.g. is it an indication that your DNS cache is corrupt?
> (in which case you should just delete your HOSTS file and issue
> ipconfig /flushdns
> to fix it) (Since Netscape works this case seems unlikely for you.)
I did the flush DNS thing, my HOSTS file is empty except for 127.0.0.1
localhost. I tried adding 2 or 3 valid hostnames and addresses to hosts
and that didn't help.
> Or is it something further into the rendering process that you
> can only guess at by inference (unless you happen to have a
> complete packet trace tool of some kind). I have suggested
> that people use the statistics given by RASMon and netstat -s
> (before and after differences) to try to assess if this is the case.
I may be able to get some sort of packet trace but don't have anything
working yet.
> If you would like some help please post back some detailed
> observations using the statistics I mentioned. It is frustrating
> for both of us to have replies such as "I tried what you said
> and it didn't work." I'd rather be ignored than see them
> and ignore them if I do get them.
Where do I find RASMon?
Here's netstat -s before and after two attempts to connect with IE.
=================================================
Before
IP Statistics
Packets Received = 811
Received Header Errors = 0
Received Address Errors = 1
Datagrams Forwarded = 1
Unknown Protocols Received = 0
Received Packets Discarded = 0
Received Packets Delivered = 809
Output Requests = 764
Routing Discards = 0
Discarded Output Packets = 0
Output Packet No Route = 0
Reassembly Required = 0
Reassembly Successful = 0
Reassembly Failures = 0
Datagrams Successfully Fragmented = 0
Datagrams Failing Fragmentation = 0
Fragments Created = 0
ICMP Statistics
Received Sent
Messages 1 5
Errors 0 0
Destination Unreachable 0 1
Time Exceeded 0 0
Parameter Problems 0 0
Source Quenches 0 0
Redirects 0 0
Echos 0 1
Echo Replies 1 0
Timestamps 0 0
Timestamp Replies 0 0
Address Masks 0 0
Address Mask Replies 0 0
TCP Statistics
Active Opens = 70
Passive Opens = 1
Failed Connection Attempts = 0
Reset Connections = 2
Current Connections = 2
Segments Received = 713
Segments Sent = 643
Segments Retransmitted = 0
UDP Statistics
Datagrams Received = 93
No Ports = 3
Receive Errors = 0
Datagrams Sent = 116
=======================================================
After
IP Statistics
Packets Received = 826
Received Header Errors = 0
Received Address Errors = 3
Datagrams Forwarded = 1
Unknown Protocols Received = 0
Received Packets Discarded = 0
Received Packets Delivered = 822
Output Requests = 777
Routing Discards = 0
Discarded Output Packets = 0
Output Packet No Route = 0
Reassembly Required = 0
Reassembly Successful = 0
Reassembly Failures = 0
Datagrams Successfully Fragmented = 0
Datagrams Failing Fragmentation = 0
Fragments Created = 0
ICMP Statistics
Received Sent
Messages 1 5
Errors 0 0
Destination Unreachable 0 1
Time Exceeded 0 0
Parameter Problems 0 0
Source Quenches 0 0
Redirects 0 0
Echos 0 1
Echo Replies 1 0
Timestamps 0 0
Timestamp Replies 0 0
Address Masks 0 0
Address Mask Replies 0 0
TCP Statistics
Active Opens = 70
Passive Opens = 1
Failed Connection Attempts = 0
Reset Connections = 2
Current Connections = 2
Segments Received = 713
Segments Sent = 643
Segments Retransmitted = 0
UDP Statistics
Datagrams Received = 104
No Ports = 5
Receive Errors = 0
Datagrams Sent = 129
WWW
WWW <W...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:Xns9241B5F53...@63.240.76.16:
> "Robert Aldwinckle" <rob...@techemail.com> wrote in
> news:O7hNDl4ICHA.2280@tkmsftngp12:
>
>> Have you tried diagnosing the symptom? The problem with
>> that message is that it seems to represent too many different
>> things. E.g. is it an indication that your DNS cache is corrupt?
>> (in which case you should just delete your HOSTS file and issue
>> ipconfig /flushdns
>> to fix it) (Since Netscape works this case seems unlikely for
>> you.)
>> Or is it something further into the rendering process that you
>> can only guess at by inference (unless you happen to have a
>> complete packet trace tool of some kind). I have suggested
>> that people use the statistics given by RASMon and netstat -s
>> (before and after differences) to try to assess if this is the case.
>
I installed Ethereal on this PC and did a trace. I see a "DNS standard
query A groups.yahoo.com" go out and a "Standard query response CNAME
groups1.vip.scd.yahoo.com A 66.218.66.240" come back.
Ping returns "Pinging groups1.vip.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.240] with 32
bytes of data:
Reply from 66.218.66.240: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=51"
but IE still puts up the "Cannot find server or DNS Error" page.
Robert Aldwinckle
> I installed Ethereal on this PC and did a trace. I see a "DNS standard
> query A groups.yahoo.com" go out and a "Standard query response CNAME
> groups1.vip.scd.yahoo.com A 66.218.66.240" come back.
>
> Ping returns "Pinging groups1.vip.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.240] with 32
> bytes of data:
>
> Reply from 66.218.66.240: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=51"
>
> but IE still puts up the "Cannot find server or DNS Error" page.
>
I don't get that. I had to put a -w 1024 before even 1 ping reply came in.
C:\>ping groups1.vip.scd.yahoo.com -w 1024
Pinging groups1.vip.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.240] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 66.218.66.240: bytes=32 time=1272ms TTL=54
Request timed out.
This suggests to me that there is congestion somewhere.
Tracert seems to confirm that idea.
C:\>tracert groups1.vip.scd.yahoo.com
Tracing route to groups1.vip.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.240]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1823 ms 1703 ms 1462 ms ts16.mn.ottawa.cyberus.ca [209.195.69.144]
2 1622 ms 1843 ms 1552 ms c7204-mn-fe0.ottawa.cyberus.ca [209.195.69.190]
3 1652 ms 1552 ms 1653 ms if-11-0-0.bb1.Ottawa.Teleglobe.net [207.45.210.249]
4 1753 ms 1462 ms 1682 ms if-4-1-0.bb3.Montreal.Teleglobe.net [207.45.222.165]
5 1762 ms 1633 ms 1442 ms if-10-1.core1.Montreal.teleglobe.net [207.45.221.162]
6 2043 ms 2854 ms 1572 ms if-2-0.core2.NewYork.Teleglobe.net [64.86.83.226]
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 1923 ms 1452 ms 2013 ms if-3-0.core2.PaloAlto.Teleglobe.net [64.86.83.205]
9 1823 ms 1662 ms 2083 ms ix-1-0.core2.PaloAlto.Teleglobe.net [64.86.84.146]
10 1913 ms 1462 ms 1832 ms vl10.bas1.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.64.134]
11 1843 ms 1972 ms 2494 ms groups1.vip.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.240]
Trace complete.
So, my guess is that you are a good candidate to try
Kent W. England's timing parameters changes.
For some time now I have been suggesting three things
to deal with the so-called Red-X syndrome.
1. set caching method to Every visit...
2. bypass a proxy if you are using one
3. change timing parameters
The first is counter-intuitive but I think it works because
it is obviously going to be slower, so perhaps allowance
is made for that. However, it is also more regular so
I suspect it avoids certain bugs in the caching algorithm
that seem to be there but perhaps only show up in
extreme situations.
The second is where I had to go if the first wasn't enough
and was only required intermittently but when required it
was required on both my partitions. This implied to me
that network delays could be a factor, so for a third
adjustment I suggested:
Subject: Re: How can I set the timeouts for connects.
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:42:19 -0800
Message-ID: <u832VJRpBHA.1088@tkmsftngp02>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser
Search Google Groups for
msgid:u832VJRpBHA.1088@tkmsftngp02
AFAIK nobody has tried adjusting either of the timeouts
that Kent mentioned in his post. Now with your trace
tool you should be able to tell if they actually have any
effect. (I'm assuming you can get a fine enough timestamp
on each packet?)
BTW even with this "congestion" I can still load that
page with caching option Automatic and my proxy in use...
Something is a bit odd about it though:
Content-Encoding: deflate
Content-Type: text/html
Then it's unreadable. That could make recovering from
exceptions more problematic and in turn increase the
severity of symptoms from such cases.
Hmmm... I just rechecked; everything is back to normal.
No delays. No congestion.
YMMV
Robert Aldwinckle
---
WWW
> Subject: Re: When is a DNS error not a DNS error?
> From: "Robert Aldwinckle" <rob...@techemail.com>
> Newsgroups:
> microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie5.browser,microsoft.public.wind
> ows.inetexplorer.ie5.setup
>
> "WWW" <W...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9241BF4A2...@63.240.76.16...
>> Packet trace update below
>>
>> WWW <W...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns9241B5F53...@63.240.76.16:
> ...
>> I installed Ethereal on this PC and did a trace. I see a "DNS
>> standard query A groups.yahoo.com" go out and a "Standard query
>> response CNAME groups1.vip.scd.yahoo.com A 66.218.66.240" come back.
>>
>> Ping returns "Pinging groups1.vip.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.240] with
>> 32 bytes of data:
>>
>> Reply from 66.218.66.240: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=51"
>>
>> but IE still puts up the "Cannot find server or DNS Error" page.
>>
>
> I don't get that. I had to put a -w 1024 before even 1 ping reply
> came in.
>
> C:\>ping groups1.vip.scd.yahoo.com -w 1024
>
> Pinging groups1.vip.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.240] with 32 bytes of
> data:
>
> Request timed out.
> Request timed out.
> Reply from 66.218.66.240: bytes=32 time=1272ms TTL=54
> Request timed out.
>
The timeout problems you had with that site seems to be a red herring. I'm
getting good ping times to the various sites I'm trying. The DNS responses
are coming back in less than .2 seconds.
Sandi - Microsoft MVP
http://www.mvps.org/inetexplorer/answers.htm#dns
--
Posted via news://msnews.microsoft.com
Please do not send an email unless asked to do so.
________________________________________
Sandi Hardmeier
Microsoft MVP (Internet Explorer and Outlook Express)
http://www.mvps.org/inetexplorer
"WWW" <W...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9241536C6...@216.148.227.77...
WWW
news:Xns9240DF86F...@204.127.68.17:
Fixed. I believe the problem was Zone Alarm. I'd previously used Zone
alarm on this computer, but had disabled it and ( I thought ) uninstalled
it some time back. But Zone Alarm doesn't uninstall cleanly. I had to use
the instruction on the Zone Alarm site to find and eradicate all of the
pieces, and it took booting into safe mode to delete all of the files.
http://www.zonelabs.com/store/content/support/znalmInstallFAQ.jsp
( I found this answer because tracert was also broken [ error 65 ] and
searching on that error led to a reference to Zone Alarm )
In the process of uninstalling ZA, I also uninstalled and re-installed
TCP/IP one more time, but that may or may not have been needed if I'd
gotten rid of all the ZA stuff on my first attempt.
If anyone else with this issue tries this, please post as to whether or
not fully uninstalling ZA helps.
Robert Aldwinckle
> > Or is it something further into the rendering process that you
> > can only guess at by inference (unless you happen to have a
> > complete packet trace tool of some kind). I have suggested
> > that people use the statistics given by RASMon and netstat -s
> > (before and after differences) to try to assess if this is the case.
> Where do I find RASMon?
Don't know. It may be an NT only program. I just start
that from my Run... dialog (well actually I put it in my
Startup folder). That puts an icon into my SysTray
labeled Dial-Up Networking Monitor that I can doubleclick.
An alternative way to start it is to use the Dial-Up Networking
menu item (in Accessories, an alias for RASPhone)
then click on More... and Monitor Status...
>
> Here's netstat -s before and after two attempts to connect with IE.
...
WinDiff summarizes those two reports as:
IP Statistics
<! Packets Received = 811
!> Packets Received = 826
Received Header Errors = 0
<! Received Address Errors = 1
!> Received Address Errors = 3
Datagrams Forwarded = 1
Unknown Protocols Received = 0
Received Packets Discarded = 0
<! Received Packets Delivered = 809
!> Received Packets Delivered = 822
<! Output Requests = 764
!> Output Requests = 777
...
UDP Statistics
<! Datagrams Received = 93
!> Datagrams Received = 104
<! No Ports = 3
!> No Ports = 5
Receive Errors = 0
<! Datagrams Sent = 116
!> Datagrams Sent = 129
I'm glad you have that trace running because this
is way more data than I was expecting for a simple
DNS failure. I thought that the symptom of that
might be a few more UDP datagrams.
Any idea what those Received Address errors mean?
Or No Ports? (FWIW I seem to usually have 2 of the
latter and none of the former.)
Right now I am trying to figure out how to use Ethereal
myself. We may be able to compare working vs
not working to see if that yields a clue. Also I keep
forgetting to test on my IE 6 partition to see if
I can reproduce your symptom there.
Robert
---
WWW
fix was to fully eradicate the pieces of Zone alarm that were still in
the system even after it was uninstalled.
"Robert Aldwinckle" <rob...@techemail.com> wrote in news:uFlUSNFJCHA.2660
@tkmsftngp13:
>> Where do I find RASMon?
>
> Don't know. It may be an NT only program. I just start
> that from my Run... dialog (well actually I put it in my
> Startup folder). That puts an icon into my SysTray
> labeled Dial-Up Networking Monitor that I can doubleclick.
> An alternative way to start it is to use the Dial-Up Networking
> menu item (in Accessories, an alias for RASPhone)
> then click on More... and Monitor Status...
Ahh, right, Rasmon is in NT4, or in the W2K resource kit.
>>
>> Here's netstat -s before and after two attempts to connect with IE.
> ...
>
> Any idea what those Received Address errors mean?
> Or No Ports? (FWIW I seem to usually have 2 of the
> latter and none of the former.)
In hindsight, I think the port errors were the key, that is, zone alarm
had the ports blocked which IE5.5 needed to use to recieve the DNS info.
Thanks for trying to help, it was your mention of tracert which got me
looking at something that eventually led to an answer.
Sandi - Microsoft MVP
--
Posted via news://msnews.microsoft.com
Please do not send an email unless asked to do so.
________________________________________
Sandi Hardmeier
Microsoft MVP (Internet Explorer and Outlook Express)
http://www.mvps.org/inetexplorer
"WWW" <W...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9240E9FBC...@63.240.76.16...
Robert Aldwinckle
> > Help! I just upgraded from IE5.0 to IE5.5 SP2 ( using W2K ). Now I
> > can't browse to any site with IE, I get the Page cannot be displayed
> > (DNS error) message. But TCP/IP is OK, I can browse with Netscape, I
> > can ping sites by IP or by name. Http by IP doesn't work in IE either
> > but is OK in Netscape.
> Fixed. I believe the problem was Zone Alarm. I'd previously used Zone
> alarm on this computer, but had disabled it and ( I thought ) uninstalled
> it some time back. But Zone Alarm doesn't uninstall cleanly. I had to use
> the instruction on the Zone Alarm site to find and eradicate all of the
> pieces, and it took booting into safe mode to delete all of the files.
> http://www.zonelabs.com/store/content/support/znalmInstallFAQ.jsp
How does this explain the Netscape aspect of your symptom
description? Was Netscape allowed to bypass Zone Alarm
and there was enough of ZA left to do that?
BTW your site (groups.yahoo.com) is now another one
that I will cite as an example of the Red-X syndrome.
I tried it with my IE 6 partition with my proxy and with
caching Automatic and all that came in was a totally
empty frame! <HTML></HTML> (This is what View
Source showed. Again, it was some kind of compressed
data in the actual packet.) Subsequent tries managed
to get in the ad of the day and nothing more. Only when
I turned off my proxy was I able to see the page completely.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to use Ethereal.
It is not transparent enough and needs too many
cycles which it steals from the real communication
processes thus causing them to timeout.
I suppose I should upgrade my IE 5.01 SP2
to IE 5.5 SP2 and see if there really are the
fixes in it that I am anticipating will eventually
be in IE 6.0 SP1.
Glad to hear you found a fix.
Robert
---
WWW
"Robert Aldwinckle" <rob...@techemail.com> wrote in
news:#nxiVbaJCHA.1744@tkmsftngp13:
>
> "WWW" <W...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92427D120...@204.127.68.17...
>> WWW <W...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns9240DF86F...@204.127.68.17:
> ...
>> > Help! I just upgraded from IE5.0 to IE5.5 SP2 ( using W2K ). Now I
>> > can't browse to any site with IE, I get the Page cannot be
>> > displayed (DNS error) message. But TCP/IP is OK, I can browse with
>> > Netscape, I can ping sites by IP or by name. Http by IP doesn't
>> > work in IE either but is OK in Netscape.
> ...
>> Fixed. I believe the problem was Zone Alarm. I'd previously used Zone
>> alarm on this computer, but had disabled it and ( I thought )
>> uninstalled it some time back. But Zone Alarm doesn't uninstall
>> cleanly. I had to use the instruction on the Zone Alarm site to find
>> and eradicate all of the pieces, and it took booting into safe mode
>> to delete all of the files.
>> http://www.zonelabs.com/store/content/support/znalmInstallFAQ.jsp
> ...
>
> How does this explain the Netscape aspect of your symptom
> description? Was Netscape allowed to bypass Zone Alarm
> and there was enough of ZA left to do that?
Programs that were working and authorized when Zone Alarm was installed,
such as Netscape, continued to work. Newly installed or changed programs
were blocked. If Zone Alarm had been fully active it would have popped up
a message asking if I wanted to authorize the new prog to access the
'net. ping and ipconfig also worked because I'd run and authorized them
under ZA. Tracert failed because I hadn't used it while ZA was active.
The vsmon.exe was still being loaded on my system even tho I'd
uninstalled ZA! Evidently, problems uninstalling ZA are common.
> Unfortunately I haven't been able to use Ethereal.
> It is not transparent enough and needs too many
> cycles which it steals from the real communication
> processes thus causing them to timeout.
If you're trying to display the capture in real-time, try instead turning
OFF "update list of captured packets in real time" --- that should take a
lot less CPU.