Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 16:56:14 -0500 From: "James B. Byrne" <byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca> To: "Adam Vande More" <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@harte-lyne.ca Subject: Re: FreeBSD jails, dns and ping Message-ID: <b969c3c73406ee2ddc7008fc20ccdc68.squirrel@webmail.harte-lyne.ca> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BtpaK2D5hpc1GcarQq8aFvvf2ju7SqeiEX2pqnv89N7MtOvRQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <0e8b6603883129b6406e0eb0ee296ec9.squirrel@webmail.harte-lyne.ca> <CA%2BtpaK2D5hpc1GcarQq8aFvvf2ju7SqeiEX2pqnv89N7MtOvRQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, February 5, 2018 16:38, Adam Vande More wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:18 PM, James B. Byrne via freebsd-questions <
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone explain what is causing this particular inconsistency?
>> Unbound can resolve the address but ping cannot?
>>
>
> What is inconsistent about that? Just because something has a valid
> DNS entry doesn't imply it will respond to ping.
What is inconsistent is that ping will not resolve the address but
drill will. The only nameserver defined in /etc/resolv.conf is
127.0.0.1. We never get to the point of determining if the target
replies to the ping.
>
> Also pkg uses SRV records, it's been discussed here before.
>
pkg.freebsd.org happens to be the domain that I used to test whether
or not ping could resolve. I get the same results irrespective of the
domain used.
--
*** e-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel ***
Do NOT transmit sensitive data via e-Mail
Do NOT open attachments nor follow links sent by e-Mail
James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada L8E 3C3
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b969c3c73406ee2ddc7008fc20ccdc68.squirrel>