In message ,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>Doing this sort of survey on the wild (and wide) Internet leads
>rapidly into a deep rabbit hole :-)
>
>If you go that way, one may also add to the requirments: "test the
>name servers returned, to see if they actually reply (and with bit
>AA)".
Yes.
In message <20210909103322.ga27...@fantomas.sk>,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>On 09.09.21 03:20, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>I don't want and don't need SOA records. I want and need only the relevant
>>NS records.
>
>server in some cases send the SOA.
Yes. I am aware of that. Thank you.
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 12:33:22PM +0200,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
a message of 59 lines which said:
> Note that some domains can be horribly broken and different
> nameservers can send different NS, or no NS at all but SOA.
Doing this sort of survey on the wild (and wide) Internet leads
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:20:14AM -0700,
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote
a message of 48 lines which said:
> I don't want and don't need SOA records. I want and need only the
> relevant NS records.
The algorithm proposed by Matt Pounsett uses the SOA but only to find
the NS (through the name of
On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 10:48:57AM -0400,
Matthew Pounsett wrote a message of 32 lines which
said:
Yeah, you can pretty reliably get the answer in one or two steps by
requesting the NS set for the FQDN. You'll either get your answer, or
get an SOA with the name of the enclosing zone. Second
In message ,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 10:48:57AM -0400,
> Matthew Pounsett wrote
> a message of 32 lines which said:
>
>> Yeah, you can pretty reliably get the answer in one or two steps by
>> requesting the NS set for the FQDN. You'll either get your answer, or
>>
On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 10:48:57AM -0400,
Matthew Pounsett wrote
a message of 32 lines which said:
> Yeah, you can pretty reliably get the answer in one or two steps by
> requesting the NS set for the FQDN. You'll either get your answer, or
> get an SOA with the name of the enclosing zone.
In message
Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 03:45, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
>> The only solution is chasing the delegations from the root (which is
>> what dig +trace is doing). Caching speeds it, this is why it is
>> better to go through your resolver than using dig +trace.
On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 12:40:14PM -0700,
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote
a message of 36 lines which said:
> >I'm not aware of a tool (free software or not) which does it. Some
> >programming will be required.
>
> I was afraid of that, but thank you for confirming.
Don't despair, see the other
In message ,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> I know that I can get this information by using "dig +trace", but that seems
>> to be rather slow to me (wall clock time), and I want to be doing
>> this a lot.
>
>The only solution is chasing the delegations from the root (which is
>what dig +trace is
On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 03:45, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> The only solution is chasing the delegations from the root (which is
> what dig +trace is doing). Caching speeds it, this is why it is
> better to go through your resolver than using dig +trace.
Yeah, you can pretty reliably get the
On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 09:44:43AM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
a message of 34 lines which said:
> I'm not aware of a tool (free software or not) which does it. Some
> programming will be required.
Attached is an example program. Free software licence, whatever you
prefer. Requires
On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 12:33:59AM -0700,
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote
a message of 33 lines which said:
> My question is rather a simple one. Given some FQDN `D' and given
> some DNS record type 'T' (e.g. either A or or perhaps even PTR)
> does there exist some open source command line
13 matches
Mail list logo
