A system administrator is troubleshooting a network issue where a server cannot reach external websites. The server can ping the default gateway and internal hosts. Which TWO commands should the administrator use to further diagnose the problem? (Choose TWO.)
Since gateway and internal pings succeed, routing and local connectivity work, so the fault likely lies in name resolution or external routing. nslookup google.com queries DNS directly, confirming whether the server can resolve external hostnames before any HTTP attempt.
Why this answer
Option A (nslookup google.com) is correct because the server can already reach the gateway and internal hosts, so the next likely failure point is DNS resolution; nslookup queries the configured DNS server to verify that external names like google.com resolve to IP addresses. Option E (traceroute 8.8.8.8) is correct because it traces the hop-by-hop path to an external IP, revealing where packets are dropped (e.g., at the gateway, ISP, or beyond) and distinguishing a routing problem from a DNS problem. Option B (route -n) merely displays the local routing table, which is less useful since the server already pings the gateway and internal hosts, indicating basic routing works.
Option C (ping 127.0.0.1) only tests the local loopback/TCP-IP stack, which is already proven functional by the successful pings to the gateway and internal hosts. Option D (ifconfig eth0) only shows interface configuration (IP, mask, MAC), which is also already validated by the successful internal connectivity.
Exam trap
The trap here is that candidates often choose 'route -n' (B) thinking it will show a missing default route, but since the server can ping the gateway, the default route is present; the real issue is either DNS or a routing problem beyond the first hop, which 'traceroute' (E) specifically addresses.