Thank you very much for all the incoming responses on this DNS error
messages. Again, this list members have shown me how wonderful this
list members are.
The solution:
Most of people suggest replace the host name entries with "_" to "-"
and the error message disappeared.
According to RFC, it is illegal to use underscore in the host name.
By definition from RFC's, internet names may only consist of
alphanumeric characters, the hyphen, and the period.
Thanks,
Zion
Here is the original post:
To All Helpers:
I am running solaris 2.6 on Sun Ultra-2. >
Here is the messages log entries and I could not seem to find a >
solution to resolve them.
The DNS is working fine, I can lookup each name and the server retruns
with correct ip address, I can ping the ip address and it tells me it
is alive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr 14 12:18:38 xxxxx named[475]: owner name "walhp_itrep1.vizion.co m
IN" (secondary) is invalid - proceeding anyway
Apr 14 12:18:38 xxxxx last message repeated 1 time
Apr 14 12:18:38 xxxxx named[475]: host name "walhp_itrep1.vizion.com
IN" (secondary) is invalid - proceeding anyway
Apr 14 12:18:38 xxxxx named[475]: owner name
"wal1bill_hp4p.cra.cra-net.c
om IN" (secondary) is invalid - proceeding anyway Apr 14 12:18:38
xxxxx last message repeated 1 time
Apr 14 12:18:38 xxxxx named[475]: host name "wal1bill_hp4p.vizion.co m
IN" (secondary) is invalid - proceeding anyway
Apr 14 12:18:38 xxxxx named[475]: owner name "boshp5si_1.vizion.com
Thanks to following people for their suggestions:
Rik Schneider
Kevin Maher
Derek Schatz
David Thorburn
Michael Hill
Ken from agony@eden.com
Bismark Espinoza
Floyd, Randall D.
Louis Hoo
Joel from jlee@thomas.com
Reto Lichtensteiger
Stephen Tremain
Shriman Gurung
Casper Dik
And finally for those sending the message after I have posted this
summary and left out your names.
Comment from Floyd, Randall D.:
Your problem is the underscore in your hostnames. The illegal use of
the underscore in host names is now strictly adhered to in the version
of BIND that comes with Solaris 2.6. This is in accordance with RFC
952, in which host naming rules are defined. I guess that the
compiled distribution of BIND that Solaris 2.5.1 shipped with ignored
this naming rule. I experimented with copying in.named from a Solaris
2.5.1 box to a 2.6 box to "get around" this problem, and it seemed to
work just fine. But, don't take my word as gospel; I didn't stress
test it or anything.
Comments from David Thorburn:
Names with '_' in them, per RFC 922, are not valid, and the resolve
libraries on 2.6 care (while the 2.5.1 and earlier libraries didn't).
This has caused us extensive problems, and I've managed to work out
the following hypotheses:
- pre-2.6 machiens work as you have come to know simply
because their libraries are lenient; it seems that the 2.6
library routines are strictly complying with the RFC and cannot
"understand" the response they get back from DNS when resolving
(telnet, ping, etc) a *_* hostname
- of course, on any Solaris rev, nslookup (a true DNS program) is
unaffected
- 2.6 machines cannot resolve (telnet, ping, etc) *_* names
through DNS
- 2.6 machines can try to query DNS and, upon failure, continue on
to YP without breaking (this is Very Good)
- if your machine name is presented as *_* anywhere through the
resolution process -- whether resolving a *_* name, or resolving a
non-*_* name that is an alias of a *_* canonical name -- then you
will get a DNS failure
- 2.6 machines can resolve (telnet, ping, etc) *_* names
through YP, even if your YP simply forwards on to DNS
- a 2.6 YP server cannot resolve (telnet, ping, etc) *_*
names through DS, but can forward requests to DNS through *itself* as
a YP server
- it matters not whether your YP and/or DNS servers are
running 2.6; they still work.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 23:12:37 CDT