Re: [DNG] dig vs nslookup: was Weird network issue - slow to resolve IPs
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 17:32:50 +1100 wirelessd...@gmail.com wrote: > > On 17 Oct 2018, at 15:58, Steve Litt > > wrote: > > > > What's your opinion of nslookup as an alternative to dig? Not sure, > > but I think you need to install bind to get dig, and not everyone > > wants to install bind. > > Since looking at Unbound and NSD, I’ve been trying out drill as an > alternative developed by the same NLnet people. > > https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/projects/ldns/about/ > > Install via the ldnsutils package. Very nice! I just installed it and will start using it. SteveT Steve Litt September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] dig vs nslookup: was Weird network issue - slow to resolve IPs
Quoting wirelessd...@gmail.com (wirelessd...@gmail.com): > Since looking at Unbound and NSD, I’ve been trying out drill as an > alternative developed by the same NLnet people. > > https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/projects/ldns/about/ > > Install via the ldnsutils package. 'drill' is the very newest such tool, having advantages over the others concerning DNSSEC in particular. It's also claimed to be super-fast on account of relying on the ldns library. But the main point is DNSSEC support. I was trying to remember the name of the thing during the upthread discussion, and couldn't quite remember it. All I could remember that it was some variation on the concept of digging. Which, in a way, underlines one of the real-world reasons we-generic tend to stick with tools: familiarity. ;-> (I resisted the migration from nslookup to dig for a while, two decades ago, because my fingers' muscle-memory and my mind's habits knew all about how to use nslookup. It was annoying to start over with 'dig'.) ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] dig vs nslookup: was Weird network issue - slow to resolve IPs
> On 17 Oct 2018, at 15:58, Steve Litt wrote: > > What's your opinion of nslookup as an alternative to dig? Not sure, but > I think you need to install bind to get dig, and not everyone wants to > install bind. Since looking at Unbound and NSD, I’ve been trying out drill as an alternative developed by the same NLnet people. https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/projects/ldns/about/ Install via the ldnsutils package. —Tom___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] dig vs nslookup: was Weird network issue - slow to resolve IPs
Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com): > What's your opinion of nslookup as an alternative to dig? Not sure, but > I think you need to install bind to get dig, and not everyone wants to > install bind. 1. No, dig isn't bundled with BIND9 _in Linux distros_ (or in other *ixes), all of which build it standalone from parts of the ISC BIND9 sources. 2. It's complicated. For quite a long time, nslookup was officially deprecated because it gave provably wrong results in some use cases, and because it relied on a chunk of very buggy spaghetti code carried forward from the old BIND4 codebase. This was covered in, among other places a Paul Vixie interview (http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Network_Other/dig-nslookup.html). DJB had a page about this (circa end of the 1990s) that I kept referring people to: https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/nslookup.html Then, in 2017, ISC suddenly removed the notations declaring that nslookup was deprecated and that people should be learning to use dig & host. Specifically, this was in the release notes for BIND 9.9.0a3: 1700. [func] nslookup is no longer to be treated as deprecated. Remove "deprecated" warning message. Add man page. I never got the full story about what exactly happened. Perhaps someone at ISC found the time and interest to rewrite nslookup's internals to fix its lingering problems. In any event, having moved on from nslookup to dig about two decades ago, I seriously no longer care. Even back then when it was a pain in the tochis to learn a repalcement networking tool, I could see that 'dig' was a generally better, more flexible, more functional tool with more script-parseable output, so I really don't care if nslookup has been improved from unacceptable to tolerable. To my knowledge, the main reason nslookup persists is that it, and not dig/host, is bundled by default with MS-Windows. All other commonly available OSes (and most particularly any *ix including OSX) long ago replaced it with 'dig'. For any MS-Windows-using friends, this page explains step-by-step how to retrofit .EXE-binary copies of dig / host / whois: https://www.mowasay.com/2017/10/r-i-p-nslookup-start-using-dig-or-host/ ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] dig vs nslookup: was Weird network issue - slow to resolve IPs
For ASCII, both dig and nslookup belong to the dnsutils package, which also offers nsupdate (which seems like some other useful dns utility :) and nothing else. Ralph. Steve Litt wrote on 17/10/18 15:58: > On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:52:34 -0700 > Rick Moen wrote: > > Rick's first word of the following paragraph refers to the dig > program... > >> It's the most versatile and reliable tool around for testing DNS >> functionality -- which in turn is useful to be able to test separately >> from the separate task of actually making connections for services >> after resolving DNS names to find where to reach them. > > What's your opinion of nslookup as an alternative to dig? Not sure, but > I think you need to install bind to get dig, and not everyone wants to > install bind. > > Thanks, > > SteveT > > Steve Litt > September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business > http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz > ___ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
