TC 9.0b1 updater just says hosts=null

[archon810]

I'm online and able to access the site and the rest of the web.

Win 10 x64 with TC 9.0b1 32bit.

Image: http://i.imgur.com/nAbIO9E.png

[ghisler(Author)]

What do you get when you type this in cmd.exe:
nslookup releaseversion.ghisler.com

It should return address 10.9.0.130

[archon810]

nslookup releaseversion.ghisler.com
Server: onhub.here
Address: 192.168.86.1

*** No internal type for both IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses (A+AAAA) records available for releaseversion.ghisler.com

[Emalis.Reckah]

nslookup releaseversion.ghisler.com
Server: onhub.here
Address: 192.168.86.1

*** No internal type for both IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses (A+AAAA) records available for releaseversion.ghisler.com

Sounds like a problem on YOUR end. Works fine here:

Code: Select all

Server:  habeIch.hier
Address:  2a03:8108:89d0:b74::1

Nicht autorisierende Antwort:
Name:    releaseversion.ghisler.com
Address:  10.9.0.130

[archon810]

I tried from my Linode and it resolves there. The question is, why is it not resolving at my router?

I wonder if others are affected and why the DNS somehow hasn't propagated to everyone.

[Sob]

Is there anything special about your connection? Like you'd be connecting using proxy? Can you resolve other hostnames like www.ghisler.com, www.google.com?

[archon810]

No proxies, and yes, I can access and browse all sites. That one is the only one giving me trouble. How new is it?

[Sob]

Does "access" include "resolve using nslookup"? If so, it can be a security feature of either your router or parent resolver (ISP's DNS servers or whatever you use). 10.x.x.x is private address and there's generally no reason why would external hostname point to internal address. Perhaps it could be even misused for something bad. I know that at least Unbound filters private addresses by default, and one Windows DNS server I can test seems to do the same, so this problem might actually be quite common.

[ghisler(Author)]

So any better ideas to do the update check without needing a 100 server farm?

[Samuel]

nslookup seems to work 95% of the time. Perhaps there could be a fallback only used if nslookup fails.

[Sob]

I like the basic idea with DNS very much, so I'd keep that. Then the options would be:

a) Don't use 10.x.x.x, but some other range. It would have to be a public one and you'd be setting hostnames pointing to someone else's address, which does feel a little wrong, but it wouldn't really hurt anyone.
b) Get IPv6 for your server and put version info in AAAA record pointing in your own address range.
c) Use TXT record. To me, this looks as most clean solution.

[Dalai]

Sob is right, the IP is a private one. nslookup works fine for me, but I can neither ping the address nor access it via HTTP or any other means; nmap shows the target as offline, tracert never gets to an end.

So I'm wondering how this is supposed to work.

Regards
Dalai

[ghisler(Author)]

a) I thought about this too, but it could bring me into legal troubles if the users actually tried to connect there, or if the server was involved in some illegal activity, etc.
b) What if the user doesn't have IPv6? Does the provider still forward IPv6 lookups?
c) Sounds good, but, does winsock allow to make TXT record lookups? And are they cached by the provider's DNS servers? And are they allowed through?

[wanderer]

nslookup seems to work 95% of the time.

I wonder, the other 5% what does it return? It times-out or returns something else?

[wanderer]

a) I thought about this too, but it could bring me into legal troubles if the users actually tried to connect there, or if the server was involved in some illegal activity, etc.

Unless you use a range of addresses which belongs to you . I don't know however what would be the yearly cost for such a bunch of IPs.