Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have Netgear as router, NetGear itself has set as prim dns. Windows is connected to NetGear and Ubuntu is, while I can


(it goes on UDP/DNS) I get no response when do

dig @ from Ubuntu. When +tcp flag is added and it goes on TCP/DNS there is a response. What can be the problem here? I checked that I have always AD Bit flag set in Ubuntu queries, while this is not set on windows, and I cannot see any other differences in packet frames, ANY!. Does dnsmasq which is running on (and it serves well direct requests on UDP) has something to do here?

share|improve this question

Why have yo picked Google's public nameserver as your resolver? The resolver(s) you ought to be using are those that are provided by your ISP via DHCP. Unless you're a Google customer, and is a nameserver given to you via DHCP, there's no guarantee that that IP address should work for DNS resolution.

share|improve this answer
Google has explicitly stated that was going to be their publicly available DNS. It should always "just work." – kmort May 8 '13 at 21:16
And it should hold an appropriately long cache and respond as resolver as fast as your local nameservers? I'm sure if the IETF thought that having a centralized public nameserver was best, they'd have wrote the DNS spec around a similar design. Long ago. But they haven't. Its not a good idea to use a distant resolver for all your DNS needs, even Google says its a good idea. – Nevin Williams May 9 '13 at 10:13
I don't recall them saying anything about speed. I think the idea was more that when your small ISP's DNS goes down, you're not dead in the water because there is an easy to remember DNS at You are, of course, completely correct about caching and speed, but it should work in a pinch. – kmort May 9 '13 at 11:55
I'm also looking at the number of people having trouble with in some manner or another. – Nevin Williams May 9 '13 at 12:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .