Re: ping failes but sites up

Re: ping failes but sites up

[David Jackson]

Glynn --
As always thanks for you reply.
This is interesting, ping of www.jimintriglia.com
returns: 208.244.174.17,But if we browse to that IP it takes us to a home page for the "server" and not the website of my business associate? Richard commented earler that reverse lookup failes?

I got a email from about named vs IP, and he said
ping failed because of their firewall?

Other question are their any side effects of using
name bases vs. IP based virtual hosting?


Thanks again,
David Jackson




---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>
Date: 	Fri, 17 May 2002 12:59:01 +0100

>
>David Jackson wrote:
>
>> This is kind of odd, I can get to freinds site,
>> http://www.jimintriglia, but ping hangs at the first hope, needless
>> to say were talking virtual hosting.
>
>Many networks disallow inbound ICMP echo requests.
>
>> Related is there any why to tell wheather a site
>> is namebase or IP vitural host?
>
>Resolve the hostname to an IP address, then access "http://x.x.x.x/". 
>If you get the same results as when using the hostname, then it's IP
>based.
>
>-- 
>Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-admin" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Re: ping failes but sites up

[Glynn Clements]

David Jackson wrote:

> This is interesting, ping of www.jimintriglia.com returns:
> 208.244.174.17, But if we browse to that IP it takes us to a home page
> for the "server" and not the website of my business associate?

That suggests that the virtual host is name-based.

> Richard commented earler that reverse lookup failes?

Reverse lookups often fail. Reverse lookups are delegated in blocks of
256 IP addresses. If you obtain a smaller block of IP addresses from
an ISP, the ISP would have to configure the reverse DNS information;
most ISPs don't.

> I got a email from about named vs IP, and he said
> ping failed because of their firewall?

That's common.

> Other question are their any side effects of using
> name bases vs. IP based virtual hosting?

The main one is that name-based hosting doesn't work with older
browsers. That's unlikely to be an issue now; so many sites use
name-based virtual hosting that such browsers would be almost useless.

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>

ping failes but sites up

[David Jackson]

This is kind of odd, I can get to freinds site,
http://www.jimintriglia, but ping hangs at the first hope, needless to say were talking virtual hosting.

Related is there any why to tell wheather a site
is namebase or IP vitural host?

TIH,
David

Re: ping failes but sites up

[Glynn Clements]

David Jackson wrote:

> This is kind of odd, I can get to freinds site,
> http://www.jimintriglia, but ping hangs at the first hope, needless
> to say were talking virtual hosting.

Many networks disallow inbound ICMP echo requests.

> Related is there any why to tell wheather a site
> is namebase or IP vitural host?

Resolve the hostname to an IP address, then access "http://x.x.x.x/". 
If you get the same results as when using the hostname, then it's IP
based.

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>

Re: ping failes but sites up

[DFW II]

What is the exact syntax of the command you are trying to execute?  I 
thought ping was executed as 'ping<yoursitehere>.<domain> but perhaps I am 
wrong... I do not think you need the http and I do believe you definitely 
need the domain.

THT,



Devon Wing

At 07:06 PM 5/16/02 -0600, you wrote:
>linux-admin@vger.kernel.org