Debugging DNS resolution error

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
6
down vote

favorite












I'm debugging a DNS resolution error for the domain auth.otc.t-systems.com with Cloudflare's server, but got stuck. The strange thing is that the lookup succeeds/fails depending on the machine that runs the query, but I can't figure out where the configuration differs.



The failure is always with following message: server can't find auth.otc.t-systems.com: SERVFAIL



1.1.1.1 is Cloudflare's DNS.



What I've tried so far:



  • Running nslookup auth.otc.t-systems.com 1.1.1.1 on various machines:

    • It fails on my machine with work & home internet (however it succeeds with Google's DNS in both cases).

    • It fails on a colleagues machine with work internet.

    • It succeeds in a ssh session to a remote server.


  • Now I would assume that there is some strange configuration on our work internet, that causes the lookup to fail. However I don't know what I should look for and I've also found some online nslookup services that fail as well:

    • Fails:
      https://network-tools.com/nslook/Default.asp?domain=auth.otc.t-systems.com&type=1&server=1.1.1.1&class=1&port=53&timeout=5000&go.x=21&go.y=13

    • Works: http://www.kloth.net/services/nslookup.php


Any hints how I can further debug this?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Thomas Obermüller is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.























    up vote
    6
    down vote

    favorite












    I'm debugging a DNS resolution error for the domain auth.otc.t-systems.com with Cloudflare's server, but got stuck. The strange thing is that the lookup succeeds/fails depending on the machine that runs the query, but I can't figure out where the configuration differs.



    The failure is always with following message: server can't find auth.otc.t-systems.com: SERVFAIL



    1.1.1.1 is Cloudflare's DNS.



    What I've tried so far:



    • Running nslookup auth.otc.t-systems.com 1.1.1.1 on various machines:

      • It fails on my machine with work & home internet (however it succeeds with Google's DNS in both cases).

      • It fails on a colleagues machine with work internet.

      • It succeeds in a ssh session to a remote server.


    • Now I would assume that there is some strange configuration on our work internet, that causes the lookup to fail. However I don't know what I should look for and I've also found some online nslookup services that fail as well:

      • Fails:
        https://network-tools.com/nslook/Default.asp?domain=auth.otc.t-systems.com&type=1&server=1.1.1.1&class=1&port=53&timeout=5000&go.x=21&go.y=13

      • Works: http://www.kloth.net/services/nslookup.php


    Any hints how I can further debug this?










    share|improve this question







    New contributor




    Thomas Obermüller is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite











      I'm debugging a DNS resolution error for the domain auth.otc.t-systems.com with Cloudflare's server, but got stuck. The strange thing is that the lookup succeeds/fails depending on the machine that runs the query, but I can't figure out where the configuration differs.



      The failure is always with following message: server can't find auth.otc.t-systems.com: SERVFAIL



      1.1.1.1 is Cloudflare's DNS.



      What I've tried so far:



      • Running nslookup auth.otc.t-systems.com 1.1.1.1 on various machines:

        • It fails on my machine with work & home internet (however it succeeds with Google's DNS in both cases).

        • It fails on a colleagues machine with work internet.

        • It succeeds in a ssh session to a remote server.


      • Now I would assume that there is some strange configuration on our work internet, that causes the lookup to fail. However I don't know what I should look for and I've also found some online nslookup services that fail as well:

        • Fails:
          https://network-tools.com/nslook/Default.asp?domain=auth.otc.t-systems.com&type=1&server=1.1.1.1&class=1&port=53&timeout=5000&go.x=21&go.y=13

        • Works: http://www.kloth.net/services/nslookup.php


      Any hints how I can further debug this?










      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Thomas Obermüller is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      I'm debugging a DNS resolution error for the domain auth.otc.t-systems.com with Cloudflare's server, but got stuck. The strange thing is that the lookup succeeds/fails depending on the machine that runs the query, but I can't figure out where the configuration differs.



      The failure is always with following message: server can't find auth.otc.t-systems.com: SERVFAIL



      1.1.1.1 is Cloudflare's DNS.



      What I've tried so far:



      • Running nslookup auth.otc.t-systems.com 1.1.1.1 on various machines:

        • It fails on my machine with work & home internet (however it succeeds with Google's DNS in both cases).

        • It fails on a colleagues machine with work internet.

        • It succeeds in a ssh session to a remote server.


      • Now I would assume that there is some strange configuration on our work internet, that causes the lookup to fail. However I don't know what I should look for and I've also found some online nslookup services that fail as well:

        • Fails:
          https://network-tools.com/nslook/Default.asp?domain=auth.otc.t-systems.com&type=1&server=1.1.1.1&class=1&port=53&timeout=5000&go.x=21&go.y=13

        • Works: http://www.kloth.net/services/nslookup.php


      Any hints how I can further debug this?







      networking domain-name-system






      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Thomas Obermüller is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Thomas Obermüller is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question






      New contributor




      Thomas Obermüller is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 13 hours ago









      Thomas Obermüller

      1312




      1312




      New contributor




      Thomas Obermüller is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Thomas Obermüller is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Thomas Obermüller is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          4
          down vote













          Try using dig. Twenty years ago they tried to deprecate nslookup, but its firmly ingrained into muscle memory now and impossible to get rid of, but dig is far superior. For example.



          dig +trace auth.otc.t-systems.com @1.1.1.1


          Will trace the resolution fully for you, and you can see where they differ.






          share|improve this answer




















          • Thanks, I didn't know that about nslookup. I've now tried the dig command and strangely it returns the correct ip on my machine. I've posted the output from the command on both my machine and the local machine here gist.github.com/thomas88/600d367387505a13223a5270c89eedda. Whatever dig does different, my browser (Chrome on Mac) seems to be more in line with nslookup - it can't resolve the address.
            – Thomas Obermüller
            13 hours ago






          • 2




            There isn't any reason to expect different results between dig and nslookup for this query. However since 1.1.1.1 is an anycast address the result can differ depending on which server the query end up being served by.
            – kasperd
            13 hours ago










          • Chrome, being a web client might be redirecting you. Does the http header ... curl -I <the web page youre trying to get to> reveal anything about forwarding?
            – Sirch
            12 hours ago










          • What's the point of using both +trace and @1.1.1.1? Are you sure you understand how these options work together?
            – Barmar
            6 hours ago

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Network people have used for ages 1.1.1.1 as a replacement to another private address in random interfaces of switches/routers APs. (I am myself on a location at this moment where the public facing IP adress of the hundreds of wireless APs is 1.1.1.1 )



          I bet my money in the machines you are not able to talk to Cloufare's 1.1.1.1 that you have an (imtermediate) route there for such interface.



          For instance, in my case, 1.1.1.1 is giving me my IP address:



          $ sudo tcpdump -i any -n host 1.1.1.1 and port 67
          tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
          listening on any, link-type LINUX_SLL (Linux cooked), capture size 262144 bytes
          13:11:51.037186 IP 1.1.1.1.67 > 10.x.x.x.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 296
          13:11:51.037250 IP 1.1.1.1.67 > 10.x.x.x.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 296





          share|improve this answer


















          • 2




            This is why RFC 3849 and RFC 5737 have to be rigorously enforced.
            – kasperd
            10 hours ago






          • 1




            "Too low" is a tricky basis for determining anything, though. Cloudflare have a lot of PoPs. 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=1.30 ms is my RTT to the real thing.
            – Håkan Lindqvist
            10 hours ago










          • @HÃ¥kanLindqvist Your value does seem a too low delay for an external connection....but yeah, not a reliable metric.
            – Rui F Ribeiro
            10 hours ago











          • @RuiFRibeiro Latency seems about right for same-city connectivity with no high-latency link involved. (Traceroute shows 4 addresses within my ISP, a Cloudflare address at an internet exchange in my city, then 1.1.1.1.)
            – Håkan Lindqvist
            9 hours ago










          • It seems that I can reach the Cloudflare DNS, only it fails for the domain for me. I've run nslookup for auth.otc.t-systems.com and serverfault.com. Here's the result from tcpdump: gist.github.com/thomas88/03acc781f45c9427863b1876c75acb4d
            – Thomas Obermüller
            9 hours ago











          Your Answer







          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "2"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );






          Thomas Obermüller is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f934624%2fdebugging-dns-resolution-error%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          4
          down vote













          Try using dig. Twenty years ago they tried to deprecate nslookup, but its firmly ingrained into muscle memory now and impossible to get rid of, but dig is far superior. For example.



          dig +trace auth.otc.t-systems.com @1.1.1.1


          Will trace the resolution fully for you, and you can see where they differ.






          share|improve this answer




















          • Thanks, I didn't know that about nslookup. I've now tried the dig command and strangely it returns the correct ip on my machine. I've posted the output from the command on both my machine and the local machine here gist.github.com/thomas88/600d367387505a13223a5270c89eedda. Whatever dig does different, my browser (Chrome on Mac) seems to be more in line with nslookup - it can't resolve the address.
            – Thomas Obermüller
            13 hours ago






          • 2




            There isn't any reason to expect different results between dig and nslookup for this query. However since 1.1.1.1 is an anycast address the result can differ depending on which server the query end up being served by.
            – kasperd
            13 hours ago










          • Chrome, being a web client might be redirecting you. Does the http header ... curl -I <the web page youre trying to get to> reveal anything about forwarding?
            – Sirch
            12 hours ago










          • What's the point of using both +trace and @1.1.1.1? Are you sure you understand how these options work together?
            – Barmar
            6 hours ago














          up vote
          4
          down vote













          Try using dig. Twenty years ago they tried to deprecate nslookup, but its firmly ingrained into muscle memory now and impossible to get rid of, but dig is far superior. For example.



          dig +trace auth.otc.t-systems.com @1.1.1.1


          Will trace the resolution fully for you, and you can see where they differ.






          share|improve this answer




















          • Thanks, I didn't know that about nslookup. I've now tried the dig command and strangely it returns the correct ip on my machine. I've posted the output from the command on both my machine and the local machine here gist.github.com/thomas88/600d367387505a13223a5270c89eedda. Whatever dig does different, my browser (Chrome on Mac) seems to be more in line with nslookup - it can't resolve the address.
            – Thomas Obermüller
            13 hours ago






          • 2




            There isn't any reason to expect different results between dig and nslookup for this query. However since 1.1.1.1 is an anycast address the result can differ depending on which server the query end up being served by.
            – kasperd
            13 hours ago










          • Chrome, being a web client might be redirecting you. Does the http header ... curl -I <the web page youre trying to get to> reveal anything about forwarding?
            – Sirch
            12 hours ago










          • What's the point of using both +trace and @1.1.1.1? Are you sure you understand how these options work together?
            – Barmar
            6 hours ago












          up vote
          4
          down vote










          up vote
          4
          down vote









          Try using dig. Twenty years ago they tried to deprecate nslookup, but its firmly ingrained into muscle memory now and impossible to get rid of, but dig is far superior. For example.



          dig +trace auth.otc.t-systems.com @1.1.1.1


          Will trace the resolution fully for you, and you can see where they differ.






          share|improve this answer












          Try using dig. Twenty years ago they tried to deprecate nslookup, but its firmly ingrained into muscle memory now and impossible to get rid of, but dig is far superior. For example.



          dig +trace auth.otc.t-systems.com @1.1.1.1


          Will trace the resolution fully for you, and you can see where they differ.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 13 hours ago









          Sirch

          4,40131530




          4,40131530











          • Thanks, I didn't know that about nslookup. I've now tried the dig command and strangely it returns the correct ip on my machine. I've posted the output from the command on both my machine and the local machine here gist.github.com/thomas88/600d367387505a13223a5270c89eedda. Whatever dig does different, my browser (Chrome on Mac) seems to be more in line with nslookup - it can't resolve the address.
            – Thomas Obermüller
            13 hours ago






          • 2




            There isn't any reason to expect different results between dig and nslookup for this query. However since 1.1.1.1 is an anycast address the result can differ depending on which server the query end up being served by.
            – kasperd
            13 hours ago










          • Chrome, being a web client might be redirecting you. Does the http header ... curl -I <the web page youre trying to get to> reveal anything about forwarding?
            – Sirch
            12 hours ago










          • What's the point of using both +trace and @1.1.1.1? Are you sure you understand how these options work together?
            – Barmar
            6 hours ago
















          • Thanks, I didn't know that about nslookup. I've now tried the dig command and strangely it returns the correct ip on my machine. I've posted the output from the command on both my machine and the local machine here gist.github.com/thomas88/600d367387505a13223a5270c89eedda. Whatever dig does different, my browser (Chrome on Mac) seems to be more in line with nslookup - it can't resolve the address.
            – Thomas Obermüller
            13 hours ago






          • 2




            There isn't any reason to expect different results between dig and nslookup for this query. However since 1.1.1.1 is an anycast address the result can differ depending on which server the query end up being served by.
            – kasperd
            13 hours ago










          • Chrome, being a web client might be redirecting you. Does the http header ... curl -I <the web page youre trying to get to> reveal anything about forwarding?
            – Sirch
            12 hours ago










          • What's the point of using both +trace and @1.1.1.1? Are you sure you understand how these options work together?
            – Barmar
            6 hours ago















          Thanks, I didn't know that about nslookup. I've now tried the dig command and strangely it returns the correct ip on my machine. I've posted the output from the command on both my machine and the local machine here gist.github.com/thomas88/600d367387505a13223a5270c89eedda. Whatever dig does different, my browser (Chrome on Mac) seems to be more in line with nslookup - it can't resolve the address.
          – Thomas Obermüller
          13 hours ago




          Thanks, I didn't know that about nslookup. I've now tried the dig command and strangely it returns the correct ip on my machine. I've posted the output from the command on both my machine and the local machine here gist.github.com/thomas88/600d367387505a13223a5270c89eedda. Whatever dig does different, my browser (Chrome on Mac) seems to be more in line with nslookup - it can't resolve the address.
          – Thomas Obermüller
          13 hours ago




          2




          2




          There isn't any reason to expect different results between dig and nslookup for this query. However since 1.1.1.1 is an anycast address the result can differ depending on which server the query end up being served by.
          – kasperd
          13 hours ago




          There isn't any reason to expect different results between dig and nslookup for this query. However since 1.1.1.1 is an anycast address the result can differ depending on which server the query end up being served by.
          – kasperd
          13 hours ago












          Chrome, being a web client might be redirecting you. Does the http header ... curl -I <the web page youre trying to get to> reveal anything about forwarding?
          – Sirch
          12 hours ago




          Chrome, being a web client might be redirecting you. Does the http header ... curl -I <the web page youre trying to get to> reveal anything about forwarding?
          – Sirch
          12 hours ago












          What's the point of using both +trace and @1.1.1.1? Are you sure you understand how these options work together?
          – Barmar
          6 hours ago




          What's the point of using both +trace and @1.1.1.1? Are you sure you understand how these options work together?
          – Barmar
          6 hours ago












          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Network people have used for ages 1.1.1.1 as a replacement to another private address in random interfaces of switches/routers APs. (I am myself on a location at this moment where the public facing IP adress of the hundreds of wireless APs is 1.1.1.1 )



          I bet my money in the machines you are not able to talk to Cloufare's 1.1.1.1 that you have an (imtermediate) route there for such interface.



          For instance, in my case, 1.1.1.1 is giving me my IP address:



          $ sudo tcpdump -i any -n host 1.1.1.1 and port 67
          tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
          listening on any, link-type LINUX_SLL (Linux cooked), capture size 262144 bytes
          13:11:51.037186 IP 1.1.1.1.67 > 10.x.x.x.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 296
          13:11:51.037250 IP 1.1.1.1.67 > 10.x.x.x.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 296





          share|improve this answer


















          • 2




            This is why RFC 3849 and RFC 5737 have to be rigorously enforced.
            – kasperd
            10 hours ago






          • 1




            "Too low" is a tricky basis for determining anything, though. Cloudflare have a lot of PoPs. 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=1.30 ms is my RTT to the real thing.
            – Håkan Lindqvist
            10 hours ago










          • @HÃ¥kanLindqvist Your value does seem a too low delay for an external connection....but yeah, not a reliable metric.
            – Rui F Ribeiro
            10 hours ago











          • @RuiFRibeiro Latency seems about right for same-city connectivity with no high-latency link involved. (Traceroute shows 4 addresses within my ISP, a Cloudflare address at an internet exchange in my city, then 1.1.1.1.)
            – Håkan Lindqvist
            9 hours ago










          • It seems that I can reach the Cloudflare DNS, only it fails for the domain for me. I've run nslookup for auth.otc.t-systems.com and serverfault.com. Here's the result from tcpdump: gist.github.com/thomas88/03acc781f45c9427863b1876c75acb4d
            – Thomas Obermüller
            9 hours ago















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Network people have used for ages 1.1.1.1 as a replacement to another private address in random interfaces of switches/routers APs. (I am myself on a location at this moment where the public facing IP adress of the hundreds of wireless APs is 1.1.1.1 )



          I bet my money in the machines you are not able to talk to Cloufare's 1.1.1.1 that you have an (imtermediate) route there for such interface.



          For instance, in my case, 1.1.1.1 is giving me my IP address:



          $ sudo tcpdump -i any -n host 1.1.1.1 and port 67
          tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
          listening on any, link-type LINUX_SLL (Linux cooked), capture size 262144 bytes
          13:11:51.037186 IP 1.1.1.1.67 > 10.x.x.x.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 296
          13:11:51.037250 IP 1.1.1.1.67 > 10.x.x.x.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 296





          share|improve this answer


















          • 2




            This is why RFC 3849 and RFC 5737 have to be rigorously enforced.
            – kasperd
            10 hours ago






          • 1




            "Too low" is a tricky basis for determining anything, though. Cloudflare have a lot of PoPs. 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=1.30 ms is my RTT to the real thing.
            – Håkan Lindqvist
            10 hours ago










          • @HÃ¥kanLindqvist Your value does seem a too low delay for an external connection....but yeah, not a reliable metric.
            – Rui F Ribeiro
            10 hours ago











          • @RuiFRibeiro Latency seems about right for same-city connectivity with no high-latency link involved. (Traceroute shows 4 addresses within my ISP, a Cloudflare address at an internet exchange in my city, then 1.1.1.1.)
            – Håkan Lindqvist
            9 hours ago










          • It seems that I can reach the Cloudflare DNS, only it fails for the domain for me. I've run nslookup for auth.otc.t-systems.com and serverfault.com. Here's the result from tcpdump: gist.github.com/thomas88/03acc781f45c9427863b1876c75acb4d
            – Thomas Obermüller
            9 hours ago













          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          Network people have used for ages 1.1.1.1 as a replacement to another private address in random interfaces of switches/routers APs. (I am myself on a location at this moment where the public facing IP adress of the hundreds of wireless APs is 1.1.1.1 )



          I bet my money in the machines you are not able to talk to Cloufare's 1.1.1.1 that you have an (imtermediate) route there for such interface.



          For instance, in my case, 1.1.1.1 is giving me my IP address:



          $ sudo tcpdump -i any -n host 1.1.1.1 and port 67
          tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
          listening on any, link-type LINUX_SLL (Linux cooked), capture size 262144 bytes
          13:11:51.037186 IP 1.1.1.1.67 > 10.x.x.x.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 296
          13:11:51.037250 IP 1.1.1.1.67 > 10.x.x.x.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 296





          share|improve this answer














          Network people have used for ages 1.1.1.1 as a replacement to another private address in random interfaces of switches/routers APs. (I am myself on a location at this moment where the public facing IP adress of the hundreds of wireless APs is 1.1.1.1 )



          I bet my money in the machines you are not able to talk to Cloufare's 1.1.1.1 that you have an (imtermediate) route there for such interface.



          For instance, in my case, 1.1.1.1 is giving me my IP address:



          $ sudo tcpdump -i any -n host 1.1.1.1 and port 67
          tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
          listening on any, link-type LINUX_SLL (Linux cooked), capture size 262144 bytes
          13:11:51.037186 IP 1.1.1.1.67 > 10.x.x.x.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 296
          13:11:51.037250 IP 1.1.1.1.67 > 10.x.x.x.68: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 296






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 10 hours ago

























          answered 10 hours ago









          Rui F Ribeiro

          17418




          17418







          • 2




            This is why RFC 3849 and RFC 5737 have to be rigorously enforced.
            – kasperd
            10 hours ago






          • 1




            "Too low" is a tricky basis for determining anything, though. Cloudflare have a lot of PoPs. 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=1.30 ms is my RTT to the real thing.
            – Håkan Lindqvist
            10 hours ago










          • @HÃ¥kanLindqvist Your value does seem a too low delay for an external connection....but yeah, not a reliable metric.
            – Rui F Ribeiro
            10 hours ago











          • @RuiFRibeiro Latency seems about right for same-city connectivity with no high-latency link involved. (Traceroute shows 4 addresses within my ISP, a Cloudflare address at an internet exchange in my city, then 1.1.1.1.)
            – Håkan Lindqvist
            9 hours ago










          • It seems that I can reach the Cloudflare DNS, only it fails for the domain for me. I've run nslookup for auth.otc.t-systems.com and serverfault.com. Here's the result from tcpdump: gist.github.com/thomas88/03acc781f45c9427863b1876c75acb4d
            – Thomas Obermüller
            9 hours ago













          • 2




            This is why RFC 3849 and RFC 5737 have to be rigorously enforced.
            – kasperd
            10 hours ago






          • 1




            "Too low" is a tricky basis for determining anything, though. Cloudflare have a lot of PoPs. 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=1.30 ms is my RTT to the real thing.
            – Håkan Lindqvist
            10 hours ago










          • @HÃ¥kanLindqvist Your value does seem a too low delay for an external connection....but yeah, not a reliable metric.
            – Rui F Ribeiro
            10 hours ago











          • @RuiFRibeiro Latency seems about right for same-city connectivity with no high-latency link involved. (Traceroute shows 4 addresses within my ISP, a Cloudflare address at an internet exchange in my city, then 1.1.1.1.)
            – Håkan Lindqvist
            9 hours ago










          • It seems that I can reach the Cloudflare DNS, only it fails for the domain for me. I've run nslookup for auth.otc.t-systems.com and serverfault.com. Here's the result from tcpdump: gist.github.com/thomas88/03acc781f45c9427863b1876c75acb4d
            – Thomas Obermüller
            9 hours ago








          2




          2




          This is why RFC 3849 and RFC 5737 have to be rigorously enforced.
          – kasperd
          10 hours ago




          This is why RFC 3849 and RFC 5737 have to be rigorously enforced.
          – kasperd
          10 hours ago




          1




          1




          "Too low" is a tricky basis for determining anything, though. Cloudflare have a lot of PoPs. 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=1.30 ms is my RTT to the real thing.
          – Håkan Lindqvist
          10 hours ago




          "Too low" is a tricky basis for determining anything, though. Cloudflare have a lot of PoPs. 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=1.30 ms is my RTT to the real thing.
          – Håkan Lindqvist
          10 hours ago












          @HÃ¥kanLindqvist Your value does seem a too low delay for an external connection....but yeah, not a reliable metric.
          – Rui F Ribeiro
          10 hours ago





          @HÃ¥kanLindqvist Your value does seem a too low delay for an external connection....but yeah, not a reliable metric.
          – Rui F Ribeiro
          10 hours ago













          @RuiFRibeiro Latency seems about right for same-city connectivity with no high-latency link involved. (Traceroute shows 4 addresses within my ISP, a Cloudflare address at an internet exchange in my city, then 1.1.1.1.)
          – Håkan Lindqvist
          9 hours ago




          @RuiFRibeiro Latency seems about right for same-city connectivity with no high-latency link involved. (Traceroute shows 4 addresses within my ISP, a Cloudflare address at an internet exchange in my city, then 1.1.1.1.)
          – Håkan Lindqvist
          9 hours ago












          It seems that I can reach the Cloudflare DNS, only it fails for the domain for me. I've run nslookup for auth.otc.t-systems.com and serverfault.com. Here's the result from tcpdump: gist.github.com/thomas88/03acc781f45c9427863b1876c75acb4d
          – Thomas Obermüller
          9 hours ago





          It seems that I can reach the Cloudflare DNS, only it fails for the domain for me. I've run nslookup for auth.otc.t-systems.com and serverfault.com. Here's the result from tcpdump: gist.github.com/thomas88/03acc781f45c9427863b1876c75acb4d
          – Thomas Obermüller
          9 hours ago











          Thomas Obermüller is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          Thomas Obermüller is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          Thomas Obermüller is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











          Thomas Obermüller is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f934624%2fdebugging-dns-resolution-error%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          Popular posts from this blog

          Peggy Mitchell

          Palaiologos

          The Forum (Inglewood, California)