"unable to resolve host" error from /etc/hosts

[oshunluvr]

As far as I can tell, this isn't causing me any real problems. But I noticed this error and am wondering what I've done wrong...

hosts

127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost
127.0.1.1 office.smith.net office
192.168.1 media.smith.net media
192.168.1 hplaptop.smith.net hplaptop

hostname

office

error

sudo: unable to resolve host office

[Snowhog]

Re: "unable to resolve host" error from /etc/hosts

Network Configuration might be helpful?

[oshunluvr]

Re: "unable to resolve host" error from /etc/hosts

Great guide, but no change here. Edited /etc/hosts to

127.0.0.1 localhost
127.0.1.1 office
192.168.1 media.smith.net media
192.168.1 hplaptop.smith.net hplaptop

same error.

[Snowhog]

Re: "unable to resolve host" error from /etc/hosts

Isn't 127.0.1.1 a 'sub-net' of localhost? Wouldn't the entry be:

127.0.1.1 localhost office

[oshunluvr]

Re: "unable to resolve host" error from /etc/hosts

no change - also tried removing localhost line and making office 127.0.0.1

[GreyGeek]

Re: "unable to resolve host" error from /etc/hosts

Does "office.smith.net" really exist? (no spelling errors, no hidden control characters in the string or the device?)

[oshunluvr]

Re: "unable to resolve host" error from /etc/hosts

not outside my home network.

changed it to

smith

only, still showing error.

Not causing issues that I know of, I just thought if I had a bad hosts line I ought to fix it.

[skunk]

Re: "unable to resolve host" error from /etc/hosts

I don't think it will change your current error, but is there any particular reason why the IP addresses of these entries only have 3 octets instead of 4?

192.168.1    media.smith.net media
192.168.1    hplaptop.smith.net hplaptop

[GreyGeek]

Re: "unable to resolve host" error from /etc/hosts



And they are the ones that work!

[Snowhog]

Re: "unable to resolve host" error from /etc/hosts

I'm positive that oshunluvr 'typeod' the IPs. They have to be his router IP, and he either forgot to add the last octect, or left it out deliberately.

[GreyGeek]

Re: "unable to resolve host" error from /etc/hosts

I'm positive that oshunluvr 'typeod' the IPs. They have to be his router IP, and he either forgot to add the last octect, or left it out deliberately.

No doubt, or they wouldn't have worked...

[askrieger]

Re: "unable to resolve host" error from /etc/hosts

AND (of course) it's totally unnecessary:

The IETF had designated a set of prefixes to be reserved for use with private networks. As a safe guard reserved prefixes will never be assigned to networks in the global internet...
Prefix Lowest Address Highest Address
...
192.168/12 192.168.0.0 192.168.255.255
...

EVERYBODY (well, almost) HAS A 192.168.*.* ADDRESS ON THEIR HOME NETWORK!

[GreyGeek]

Re: "unable to resolve host" error from /etc/hosts

Are you saying that 192.168.1 is the same as 192.168.1.*

[Ole Juul]

Re: "unable to resolve host" error from /etc/hosts

127.0.1.1 office.smith.net office

I think this was hinted at above, but the way I see it "office.smith.net" is not localhost but "office" is. The correct syntax is IPaddress, name then alias, so shouldn't it be the other way around?

[askrieger]

Re: "unable to resolve host" error from /etc/hosts

@GreyGeek: If your question was directed to me, what I was saying was that there is no need to truncate (or otherwise obfuscate) a 192.168.*.* address, because it is COMPLETELY LOCAL to a home (or business) net. By convention, the internet ignores such addresses, because there are (quite literally) tens of thousands of duplicates of them. There are a couple of other such address strings, as well: 10.0.0.0 to 10.255.255.255, 172.16.0.0 to 172.31.255.255, and 169.254.0.0 to 169.254.255.255. Routers are hardwired not to pass them on outside the local net. See Comer's book about TCP/IP or Tanenbaum's book about Computer Networking. I once took a (tax deductible) professional development course on the subject.
[/quote]

I'm well aware of everything you write about the 192.* and 10.* address ranges. The question at hand was if "192.168.1" was a valid address in the /etc/hosts file. If it is I wasn't aware of it and I've learned something. But, my gut feeling is that only 3 octets is erroneous.

Rute.pdf has a nice section on all this stuff.