|
If the subdomains are also located on different subnets things get more hairy than a Minoxidil spill.
Running things local, all should work with the host file entries for 'real' domains... <client>.myapp and <client>.myappservice is probably what I would pick.
I think maybe there is confusion about the routing happening server-side vs client?
Which really just depends on the code. If the code to hit the service is c# server-side vs something like an inline json call from js, then which DNS resolution (and which hosts file, client v server) is getting used would be different.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, localhost is not technically a domain name, so I guess that is why it is elephanting when trying to resolve a sub domain from it.
Two things I can think of to try:
1. use sub.127.0.0.1:1234 (or possibly sub."127.0.0.1":1234
2. add sub.localhost to your hosts file. (pointing to 127.0.0.1 or localhost)
Good luck
|
|
|
|
|
RainHat wrote: so I guess that is why it is elephanting when trying to resolve a sub domain from it
But only under specific (unknown) circumstances, like being at the office or having a VPN.
I've thought about the hosts file, but that won't explain why it works in my browser, but I can't ping it and why it works at home, but not at the office and that my coworker has a varying mileage.
It doesn't work in Azure either, which is even weirder, since all subdomains are registered in a DNS within a "proper" domain.
|
|
|
|
|
When you say you cannot ping it, do you mean you get no response or you get no name resolution?
Try powershells from the machines where the app is running if you can...
Test-NetConnect <ip or fqdn> -p <port> ... I may be off on some of that syntax.
|
|
|
|
|
From comments at top of hosts file:
# localhost name resolution is handled within DNS itself.
# 127.0.0.1 localhost
# ::1 localhost
If I add a line to hosts file:
127.0.0.2 sub.localhost
then I can do:
>ping sub.localhost
Pinging sub.localhost [127.0.0.2] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 127.0.0.2: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
I've thought about the hosts file, but that won't explain why it works in my browser, but I can't ping it and why it works at home, but not at the office and that my coworker has a varying mileage.
It doesn't work in Azure either, which is even weirder, since all subdomains are registered in a DNS within a "proper" domain.
|
|
|
|
|
I think at least some browsers (Chrome, I'm looking at you!) have their own DNS resolver. VPN adds another level of weirdness and anyway localhost is not a valid domain name. Are you trying to solve all the possible interactions between these parts or you just want your app to work? If it's the first one, I'd like to hear the result, maybe in an article or tip here. If it's the second, just add a line to your hosts file. It has the highest priority in the DNS resolving order[^] and it just works.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
I think your workplace might have some dodgy network group policies/filters.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
modified 9hrs 5mins ago.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm suspicious of that too, especially with new AI network monitors/thwarters... But it would be super weird for them to muck with overriding the hosts file though?
|
|
|
|
|
I amended my comment to include group policies, which can do strange things to a machine.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
That's true... and which domain you are logging onto and whether you're "inhouse" or ingressing through a VPN or something could change which get applied. It could send you to different DNS servers (to help hide internal resources in domains that were more "edge"-closer to DMZ).
|
|
|
|
|
The only difference is a different Wi-Fi (shared with other tenants).
We don't have a work network, domain controller, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Well I guess the good news is that simplifies the situation considerably.
The bad news is I have no idea what your next troubleshooting move should be.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
It's not the Azure network gateway is it? Last weekend working away from home and needed to rdc into an Azure VM meant that I had to add the IP address where I was connected to the inbound Accept rules in order to connect. Just a thought... Good luck!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: but my web app can't access the service ("no such host is known")...("no such host is known").
This is not a "service" problem.
It is a connectivity problem.
So you need to diagnose that and stop focusing on the service.
In the modern era you can and probably should always start with diagnosing connectivity using telnet.
Since all modern sites use IP/TCP telnet is an excellent tool to test that.
If you can connect via telnet then there is no connectivity issue. If not then there is. It is just that simple. Nothing else matters in that context. For example SSL/TLS has no impact on it.
Looks like you are also using a host name and not an IP address. You can use a DNS lookup tool like 'nslookup' to determine the IP.
DNS processing is a separate service which can fail all by itself. If you can verify the look up then after that you should use the IP only since it removes that extra service lookup (and failure possibility.) Again you use telnet with the IP to check.
Now if you verify that it is not a connectivity issue then you can look at the service. For example firewall rules can block specific http requests.
Also commenting on the thing about the hosts file and browsers. That was curious so I looked that up and found the following which doesn't make it all that clear what might be expected.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42636711/google-chrome-ignoring-hosts-file[^]
But what is clear is that using the IP makes al of that irrelevant.
As one other bit of advice when using the browser - do not leave any open browser windows when testing. So no other sites. Despite things like incognito it still caches stuff. So every single browser must be closed. Or at least that was true a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,084 4/6*
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨
🟨🟨⬜🟨⬜
🟨🟩🟨🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,084 2/6
⬜⬜⬜🟨🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,084 4/6
⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨
⬜⬜🟩🟨⬜
⬜🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
⬜⬜⬜🟨🟨
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟨🟩🟩
⬜🟩🟨🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,084 4/6*
⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨
⬜🟨⬜🟨🟨
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. -Frederick Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,084 4/6
⬛🟨🟨🟨⬛
🟩🟨🟨⬛⬛
🟩🟩⬛🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,084 3/6*
⬛⬛🟨🟨🟨
⬛🟨🟨🟨⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
I hope this is not going to be called programming question, but I am running out of non AI forums to post this.( This forum Linux subforum is of no help - this is not programming issue )
I just had a total "no boot" failure of my grub file - working multi-operating system.
( Total power outage / failure caused this)
Ever since I started using Linux Ubuntu I have been unable to figure out HOW TO MAKE FULL DUPLICATE of perfectly working OS. ( Using "DD" command did not work!) I have several HD, space in no issue.
I was hoping use something likes RAID to do this. I am well aware of RAID issues, but I am desperate to have this resolved before another catastrophic failure.
PS
This time my working grub recovered because another , non used , but operational Ubuntu grub file was "updated/ upgraded".
|
|
|
|
|
I think the title of your post is hilarious because it sounds so much like when people ask (quite frequently,) "How to solve this problem?" and it's a question that would take pages and pages to answer.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I am on wrong planet- I was under the impression this forum, in particular, was in existence to help solve problems. I guess I am wrong ... again.
But I do appreciate your post for staying on the subject and
you not telling me to RTFM or "get an new one ".
Hope somebody will take "the first baby step" to start the mentioned pages leading to solution.
PS
Just went thru few "fsck" to fully (?) recover from the grub failure...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
