[PLUG] DNS weirdness

[Aaron Ten Clay]

On Jul 23, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Keith Lofstrom wrote:

>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Keith Lofstrom <keithl at kl-ic.com>  
> wrote:
>> Another change that occured in the last two months was the change
>> to Verizon FIOS and the addition of an Actiontec cable modem +
>> router + etc.  That does a lot more than the old Linksys cable
>> modem that I used for Comcast - among other things, it can act as a
>> firewall, and adds another layer of NAT - so it may be part of the
>> problem.
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Ali Corbin <ali.corbin at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>>> This sounds suspiciously familiar.  I sometimes have sporadic dns
>>> resolution problems.
>>> I've found that I can fix them by cycling power on my cable modem.
>>> I'm not at home right now, so I can't be sure, but I think mine is
>>> also an Actiontec.
>>> Ali
>>>
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 02:42:27PM -0700, Ali Corbin wrote:
>> I googled around for a bit, and found, at
>>    http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,11430965
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To the list, don't forget to add the DNS 1.0.0.0 problem.
>>
>> For me, oddly, it has only manifested with "www" hostnames. In other
>> words, I get 1.0.0.0 for "www.bob.com" but I get a good IP for
>> bob.com.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I used to have very frequent DNS 1.0.0.0 problems. For me at least,
>> the solution was to put the ISP DNS host IP addresses in the NIC IP
>> settings (static DNS) on the computer to which the Actiontec is
>> connected via ethernet. If the DNS info is left as dynamic, I am
>> guaranteed to see frequent 1.0.0.0 errors. Qwest DSL support was no
>> help in figuring this out. They had never heard of the 1.0.0.0
>> problem.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Interesting pointer, but that does not seem to be my problem - I am
> running my own domain server, not an outside one, and I am starting
> with "hints" from the root name servers.  The problem is that some
> of the DNS requests do not appear to get answered.
>
> I found this:
>   http://aplawrence.com/MacOSX/dns_puzzle.html
>
> And that may be a fruitful path to explore.  The author says that
> the Actiontec is truncating UDP packets longer than 512 bytes,
> which can cause a fallback to TCP.  However, some DNS servers do
> not support DNS queries on TCP.  More experimentation needed.
> The author points at:
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17679150-Howto-make-ActionTec-MI424WR-a-network-bridge
>
> Which is how to turn the Actiontec into a bridge.  Personally, I
> would rather get rid of the damned thing entirely and connect through
> the CAT5 that I ran to the other side of the wall from the ONT.
> That way I will not be burning power in it.
>
> Alternately, I will learn how to configure named.conf so DNS
> pulls name service from my offsite server for outside addresses.
> Or something ...
>
> Keith
>
> -- 
> Keith Lofstrom          keithl at keithl.com         Voice (503)-520-1993
> KLIC --- Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits --- "Your Ideas in  
> Silicon"
> Design Contracting in Bipolar and CMOS - Analog, Digital, and Scan ICs
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG mailing list
> PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug

In my experience, removing the ActionTec router from the equation is  
fully supported by Verizon. Just unplug it and connect whatever router  
you wish to use instead to the ethernet jack previously occupied by  
the ActionTec router.

When I've supervised their install teams in the past I've asked if  
their router is required, and the answer I got every time was no. On  
one occasion I said we don't want to use it, this Linux pc is going  
straight into the wall, and the technician said okay. He said they  
have to leave the router on site, just stick it in the closet or  
something.

-Aaron