Re: host versus nslookup
On 12/10/11 23:09, Kevin Darcy wrote: As far as I know, only HP-UX has hacked nslookup to look at /etc/hosts. And I don't think it even looks at the switch file or other naming sources (e.g. Yellow Plague). HP-UX's nslookup enhancement is a one-off, I believe. For the record, on HP-UX it does use the switch file (unless you specifically tell it to do something different when you run it). But its use as a troubleshooting tool is limited at best (misleading and confusing at worst) in that environment for testing how application resolution will work. And this is because it uses its own logic and not the high level resolver APIs that applications call. (And even if it did use the high level resolver APIs - it wouldn't necessarily be using them with the same options that an application does anyway - particularly around IPv6 versus IPv4). ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: host versus nslookup
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:33:30 +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote If you're concern about what address programs gets when they resolve host names, then getent is a better choice as it also respects nsswitch.conf and hosts file. According to the (almost useless) manpage for getent, all it does is lookups in local files, not name resolution. I can see how this would be useful if you were not using DNS, but What am I missing here? Thanks, --Bill ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: host versus nslookup
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:05 PM, listmail listm...@entertech.com wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:33:30 +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote If you're concern about what address programs gets when they resolve host names, then getent is a better choice as it also respects nsswitch.conf and hosts file. According to the (almost useless) manpage for getent, Yes, it can be improved :) all it does is lookups in local files, not name resolution. I can see how this would be useful if you were not using DNS, but If your purpose is to diagnose can the DNS server used as resolver for my server resolve a particular FQDN, then either host or nslookup will usually suffice, with dig giving more detailed output. However, if your concern is can my program find the IP address for a particular FQDN, then getent will give more accurate info as it also takes into consideration the content of nsswitch.conf and the sources listed on that file. So getent might search for local files, DNS, NIS, or whatever source listed for hosts database in nsswitch.conf. What am I missing here? From the man page: The getent program gathers entries from the specified administrative database using the specified search keys. Where database is one of passwd, group, hosts, services, protocols, or networks. In this particular case we're only interested in hosts. I found more detailed explanation in a Solaris reference, which basically say getent asks the database source in order specified in /etc/nsswitch.conf. So for example if your /etc/nsswitch.conf has something like this: hosts: files dns and your /etc/hosts has this entry 111.90.255.252 archive.ubuntu.com then getent and host will give different results for archive.ubuntu.com, since getent will search /etc/hosts first. $ host archive.ubuntu.com archive.ubuntu.com has address 91.189.92.180 archive.ubuntu.com has address 91.189.92.181 archive.ubuntu.com has address 91.189.92.182 archive.ubuntu.com has address 91.189.92.183 archive.ubuntu.com has address 91.189.92.184 archive.ubuntu.com has address 91.189.92.188 archive.ubuntu.com has address 91.189.92.190 archive.ubuntu.com has address 91.189.92.169 archive.ubuntu.com has address 91.189.92.170 archive.ubuntu.com has address 91.189.92.171 archive.ubuntu.com has address 91.189.92.176 archive.ubuntu.com has address 91.189.92.177 archive.ubuntu.com has address 91.189.92.179 $ getent hosts archive.ubuntu.com 111.90.255.252 archive.ubuntu.com on the other hand both will give same result for google.com (which is not in /etc/hosts) www.google.com is an alias for www.l.google.com. www.l.google.com has address 209.85.175.99 www.l.google.com has address 209.85.175.104 www.l.google.com has address 209.85.175.105 www.l.google.com has address 209.85.175.103 www.l.google.com has address 209.85.175.106 www.l.google.com has address 209.85.175.147 $ getent hosts www.google.com 209.85.175.99 www.l.google.com www.google.com 209.85.175.104 www.l.google.com www.google.com 209.85.175.105 www.l.google.com www.google.com 209.85.175.103 www.l.google.com www.google.com 209.85.175.106 www.l.google.com www.google.com 209.85.175.147 www.l.google.com www.google.com -- Fajar ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: host versus nslookup
On 10/13/2011 07:05 AM, listmail wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:33:30 +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote If you're concern about what address programs gets when they resolve host names, then getent is a better choice as it also respects nsswitch.conf and hosts file. According to the (almost useless) manpage for getent, all it does is lookups in local files, not name resolution. It uses whatever hosts database plugins for nsswitch are enabled. In most cases, this is: hosts: files dns At least under recent versions of glibc, there are actually several modes you can use it in: getent hosts - list all static hosts entries getent hosts key - calls gethostbyname2(key) getent ahosts key - calls getaddrinfo(AF_UNSPEC, key) getent ahostsv4 key - calls getaddrinfo(AF_INET, key) getent ahostsv6 key - calls getaddrinfo(AF_INET6, key) There's no question in my mind that getent hosts key or getent ahosts key are the appropriate tools to duplicate normal app name resolution, because the utility mirrors the API most apps will call. But you usually need to run dig to compare raw DNS and find the different. nslookup should be taken out into the woods and left there... it's a horrible program. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: host versus nslookup
host is four characters shorter. Use `dig' and save 25% ;-) `nslookup' must die. (Until a few years ago, it printed a deprecation notice which, unfortunately, has since been removed.) -JP ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
host versus nslookup
Many years ago, various flavors of unix began distributing a utility called host which did almost the same thing as nslookup. Host is what I use most of the time, now, and I actually thought that nslookup on unix systems was maybe going away. A coworker recently asked me about nslookup on our FreeBSD system and I verified the behavior he was asking about. Other than a different output format, what are the advantages of having both host and nslookup. On the FreeBSD system in question, nslookup is definitely a different binary than is host so one is not hard-linked to the other. The behavior he was asking about was simply that all foreign domains that one looks up with nslookup report as non-authoritative since the DNS one is using isnot authoritative for, say, microsoft.com or yahoo.com. This is not a problem. I am just curious. Many thanks. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK Systems Engineer OSU Information Technology Department Telecommunications Services Group ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
RE: host versus nslookup
One thing that is different about nslookup on HP-UX (which doesn't have host) is that it actually respects nsswitch.conf so will give you results from /etc/hosts OR from name services whereas most implementations only do it from name services. Nslookup is deprecated meaning you should use host where possible. Also for DNS troubleshooting dig is a much better tool than nslookup or host. -Original Message- From: bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Martin McCormick Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:22 PM To: 'bind-users@lists.isc.org'; mar...@dc.cis.okstate.edu Subject: host versus nslookup Many years ago, various flavors of unix began distributing a utility called host which did almost the same thing as nslookup. Host is what I use most of the time, now, and I actually thought that nslookup on unix systems was maybe going away. A coworker recently asked me about nslookup on our FreeBSD system and I verified the behavior he was asking about. Other than a different output format, what are the advantages of having both host and nslookup. On the FreeBSD system in question, nslookup is definitely a different binary than is host so one is not hard-linked to the other. The behavior he was asking about was simply that all foreign domains that one looks up with nslookup report as non-authoritative since the DNS one is using isnot authoritative for, say, microsoft.com or yahoo.com. This is not a problem. I am just curious. Many thanks. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK Systems Engineer OSU Information Technology Department Telecommunications Services Group ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users Athena(r), Created for the Cause(tm) Making a Difference in the Fight Against Breast Cancer - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you. -- ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: host versus nslookup
Martin wrote on 10/12/2011 01:21:45 PM: Other than a different output format, what are the advantages of having both host and nslookup. host is four characters shorter. Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information, and is intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee (or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the addressee), or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are hereby notified that you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of this message or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete this message from your system. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: host versus nslookup
On 10/12/2011 1:21 PM, Martin McCormick wrote: Many years ago, various flavors of unix began distributing a utility called host which did almost the same thing as nslookup. Host is what I use most of the time, now, and I actually thought that nslookup on unix systems was maybe going away. A coworker recently asked me about nslookup on our FreeBSD system and I verified the behavior he was asking about. Other than a different output format, what are the advantages of having both host and nslookup. On the FreeBSD system in question, nslookup is definitely a different binary than is host so one is not hard-linked to the other. The behavior he was asking about was simply that all foreign domains that one looks up with nslookup report as non-authoritative since the DNS one is using isnot authoritative for, say, microsoft.com or yahoo.com. This is not a problem. I am just curious. nslookup has lots of problems. Four that I can cite off the top of my head: 1) most versions of nslookup will stop dead in their tracks if they can't reverse-resolve the name of whatever resolver they're trying to use (even though that's basically irrelevant to the actual lookup that the user requested) 2) nslookup will by default use a searchlist, but it does this completely invisibly by default (unless a debugging option is turned on), and thus will often mis-represent the real result of the query (e.g. you look up foo.example1.com, that gets a SERVFAIL, then unbeknownst to the user, nslookup tries the searchlist'ed name foo.example1.com.example2.com and reports the resulting NXDOMAIN as the final error of the lookup, thus obscuring the real error -- SERVFAIL) 3) the default output format of nslookup doesn't distinguish the result of the query from the identity of the resolver clearly enough, so unsophisticated users will often think that the name they're looking up actually resolves to the address of the DNS resolver, and much hilarity ensues (mis-routed trouble tickets, drama, confusion, etc.) 4) some versions of nslookup display atypical DNS responses (e.g. dangling CNAMEs, referrals) in very confusing, non-intuitive ways. - Kevin ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: host versus nslookup
On 10/12/2011 3:01 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote: On 10/12/2011 1:21 PM, Martin McCormick wrote: Many years ago, various flavors of unix began distributing a utility called host which did almost the same thing as nslookup. Host is what I use most of the time, now, and I actually thought that nslookup on unix systems was maybe going away. A coworker recently asked me about nslookup on our FreeBSD system and I verified the behavior he was asking about. Other than a different output format, what are the advantages of having both host and nslookup. On the FreeBSD system in question, nslookup is definitely a different binary than is host so one is not hard-linked to the other. The behavior he was asking about was simply that all foreign domains that one looks up with nslookup report as non-authoritative since the DNS one is using isnot authoritative for, say, microsoft.com or yahoo.com. This is not a problem. I am just curious. nslookup has lots of problems. Four that I can cite off the top of my head: 1) most versions of nslookup will stop dead in their tracks if they can't reverse-resolve the name of whatever resolver they're trying to use (even though that's basically irrelevant to the actual lookup that the user requested) 2) nslookup will by default use a searchlist, but it does this completely invisibly by default (unless a debugging option is turned on), and thus will often mis-represent the real result of the query (e.g. you look up foo.example1.com, that gets a SERVFAIL, then unbeknownst to the user, nslookup tries the searchlist'ed name foo.example1.com.example2.com and reports the resulting NXDOMAIN as the final error of the lookup, thus obscuring the real error -- SERVFAIL) 3) the default output format of nslookup doesn't distinguish the result of the query from the identity of the resolver clearly enough, so unsophisticated users will often think that the name they're looking up actually resolves to the address of the DNS resolver, and much hilarity ensues (mis-routed trouble tickets, drama, confusion, etc.) 4) some versions of nslookup display atypical DNS responses (e.g. dangling CNAMEs, referrals) in very confusing, non-intuitive ways. - Kevin Use dig. Always use dig. If dig isn't installed - install dig and then use dig. Make dig part of your default set of packages on all boxes. host vs nslookup? is asking whether you should hit your self in the head with a small or large hammer. Put down the hammer and use dig. -DMM ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
RE: host versus nslookup
So hitting yourself in the head with a shovel is better? :p -Original Message- From: bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 4:08 PM To: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Re: host versus nslookup On 10/12/2011 3:01 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote: On 10/12/2011 1:21 PM, Martin McCormick wrote: Many years ago, various flavors of unix began distributing a utility called host which did almost the same thing as nslookup. Host is what I use most of the time, now, and I actually thought that nslookup on unix systems was maybe going away. A coworker recently asked me about nslookup on our FreeBSD system and I verified the behavior he was asking about. Other than a different output format, what are the advantages of having both host and nslookup. On the FreeBSD system in question, nslookup is definitely a different binary than is host so one is not hard-linked to the other. The behavior he was asking about was simply that all foreign domains that one looks up with nslookup report as non-authoritative since the DNS one is using isnot authoritative for, say, microsoft.com or yahoo.com. This is not a problem. I am just curious. nslookup has lots of problems. Four that I can cite off the top of my head: 1) most versions of nslookup will stop dead in their tracks if they can't reverse-resolve the name of whatever resolver they're trying to use (even though that's basically irrelevant to the actual lookup that the user requested) 2) nslookup will by default use a searchlist, but it does this completely invisibly by default (unless a debugging option is turned on), and thus will often mis-represent the real result of the query (e.g. you look up foo.example1.com, that gets a SERVFAIL, then unbeknownst to the user, nslookup tries the searchlist'ed name foo.example1.com.example2.com and reports the resulting NXDOMAIN as the final error of the lookup, thus obscuring the real error -- SERVFAIL) 3) the default output format of nslookup doesn't distinguish the result of the query from the identity of the resolver clearly enough, so unsophisticated users will often think that the name they're looking up actually resolves to the address of the DNS resolver, and much hilarity ensues (mis-routed trouble tickets, drama, confusion, etc.) 4) some versions of nslookup display atypical DNS responses (e.g. dangling CNAMEs, referrals) in very confusing, non-intuitive ways. - Kevin Use dig. Always use dig. If dig isn't installed - install dig and then use dig. Make dig part of your default set of packages on all boxes. host vs nslookup? is asking whether you should hit your self in the head with a small or large hammer. Put down the hammer and use dig. -DMM ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users Athena(r), Created for the Cause(tm) Making a Difference in the Fight Against Breast Cancer - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you. -- ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: host versus nslookup
On 12/10/11 22:08, David Miller wrote: On 10/12/2011 3:01 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote: On 10/12/2011 1:21 PM, Martin McCormick wrote: Many years ago, various flavors of unix began distributing a utility called host which did almost the same thing as nslookup. Host is what I use most of the time, now, and I actually thought that nslookup on unix systems was maybe going away. A coworker recently asked me about nslookup on our FreeBSD system and I verified the behavior he was asking about. Other than a different output format, what are the advantages of having both host and nslookup. On the FreeBSD system in question, nslookup is definitely a different binary than is host so one is not hard-linked to the other. The behavior he was asking about was simply that all foreign domains that one looks up with nslookup report as non-authoritative since the DNS one is using isnot authoritative for, say, microsoft.com or yahoo.com. This is not a problem. I am just curious. nslookup has lots of problems. Four that I can cite off the top of my head: 1) most versions of nslookup will stop dead in their tracks if they can't reverse-resolve the name of whatever resolver they're trying to use (even though that's basically irrelevant to the actual lookup that the user requested) 2) nslookup will by default use a searchlist, but it does this completely invisibly by default (unless a debugging option is turned on), and thus will often mis-represent the real result of the query (e.g. you look up foo.example1.com, that gets a SERVFAIL, then unbeknownst to the user, nslookup tries the searchlist'ed name foo.example1.com.example2.com and reports the resulting NXDOMAIN as the final error of the lookup, thus obscuring the real error -- SERVFAIL) 3) the default output format of nslookup doesn't distinguish the result of the query from the identity of the resolver clearly enough, so unsophisticated users will often think that the name they're looking up actually resolves to the address of the DNS resolver, and much hilarity ensues (mis-routed trouble tickets, drama, confusion, etc.) 4) some versions of nslookup display atypical DNS responses (e.g. dangling CNAMEs, referrals) in very confusing, non-intuitive ways. - Kevin Use dig. Always use dig. If dig isn't installed - install dig and then use dig. Make dig part of your default set of packages on all boxes. host vs nslookup? is asking whether you should hit your self in the head with a small or large hammer. Put down the hammer and use dig. I don't quite agree, for debugging bind, use dig - for debugging lookup issues on some machine, host will behave more like any normal program, using resolv.conf and what else and can point to some issues dig will not discover. E.g. normal SW using something else than DNS, because of some setup. Dig will never catch this. -DMM ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users -- Best regards Sten Carlsen No improvements come from shouting: MALE BOVINE MANURE!!! ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: host versus nslookup
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Sten Carlsen st...@s-carlsen.dk wrote: Use dig. Always use dig. I don't quite agree, for debugging bind, use dig - for debugging lookup issues on some machine, host will behave more like any normal program, using resolv.conf and what else and can point to some issues dig will not discover. E.g. normal SW using something else than DNS, because of some setup. Dig will never catch this. If you're concern about what address programs gets when they resolve host names, then getent is a better choice as it also respects nsswitch.conf and hosts file. -- Fajar ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: host versus nslookup
On 12/10/11 22:33, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Sten Carlsen st...@s-carlsen.dk wrote: Use dig. Always use dig. I don't quite agree, for debugging bind, use dig - for debugging lookup issues on some machine, host will behave more like any normal program, using resolv.conf and what else and can point to some issues dig will not discover. E.g. normal SW using something else than DNS, because of some setup. Dig will never catch this. If you're concern about what address programs gets when they resolve host names, then getent is a better choice as it also respects nsswitch.conf and hosts file. I just tried to make the point that dig is NOT always the perfect tool, it depends what you want to know. Using dig tells you about DNS, host and getent and even nslookup tells you more about the behaviour of your system. The right combination of those tools tells you what you need, not one single tool. I was not aware of getent, so thanks for that. -- Best regards Sten Carlsen No improvements come from shouting: MALE BOVINE MANURE!!! ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: host versus nslookup
On 10/12/2011 5:46 PM, Sten Carlsen wrote: On 12/10/11 22:33, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Sten Carlsenst...@s-carlsen.dk wrote: Use dig. Always use dig. I don't quite agree, for debugging bind, use dig - for debugging lookup issues on some machine, host will behave more like any normal program, using resolv.conf and what else and can point to some issues dig will not discover. E.g. normal SW using something else than DNS, because of some setup. Dig will never catch this. If you're concern about what address programs gets when they resolve host names, then getent is a better choice as it also respects nsswitch.conf and hosts file. I just tried to make the point that dig is NOT always the perfect tool, it depends what you want to know. Using dig tells you about DNS, host and getent and even nslookup tells you more about the behaviour of your system. As far as I know, only HP-UX has hacked nslookup to look at /etc/hosts. And I don't think it even looks at the switch file or other naming sources (e.g. Yellow Plague). HP-UX's nslookup enhancement is a one-off, I believe. On most platforms, the only way that nslookup is closer to the OS name-resolution mechanism than dig is that nslookup will do suffix-searching, whereas dig will not. But even then, I think nslookup uses its own version of the resolver library to do that, so if one is trying to troubleshoot a problem with the OS'es suffix-searching behavior using nslookup, one might be comparing apples to grapefruit (or, since we're talking about nslookup here, perhaps I should say uglyfruit). - Kevin ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: host versus nslookup
AIX also does something similar. On 10/12/11 05:09 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote: As far as I know, only HP-UX has hacked nslookup to look at /etc/hosts. And I don't think it even looks at the switch file or other naming sources (e.g. Yellow Plague). HP-UX's nslookup enhancement is a one-off, I believe. On most platforms, the only way that nslookup is closer to the OS name-resolution mechanism than dig is that nslookup will do suffix-searching, whereas dig will not. But even then, I think nslookup uses its own version of the resolver library to do that, so if one is trying to troubleshoot a problem with the OS'es suffix-searching behavior using nslookup, one might be comparing apples to grapefruit (or, since we're talking about nslookup here, perhaps I should say uglyfruit). - Kevin ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: host versus nslookup
In message 040b89c8b1e1d945ae2700c511a039e905a...@atmexdb04.dsw.net, Lightne r, Jeff writes: One thing that is different about nslookup on HP-UX (which doesn't have host) is that it actually respects nsswitch.conf so will give you results from /et c/hosts OR from name services whereas most implementations only do it from na me services. It shouldn't. The NS in nslookup stands for NAMESERVER. Nslookup is a diagnostic tool for the DNS and corrupting it to lookin /etc/hosts, NIS, YP, LDAP is just wrong. Nslookup is deprecated meaning you should use host where possible. Also f or DNS troubleshooting dig is a much better tool than nslookup or host. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users