Dig arguments are positional and they always were. See the Simple Usage and
Multiple Queries sections in the manual page for details.
Ondřej
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel
obligated to reply outside your normal
Sorry, there is no clear description of the problem
I describe the question again
Any parameters of the dig command should not be in sequence,
such as below
dig 1.1.1.1.in-addr.arpa PTR +trace +nodnssec VS dig
1.1.1.1.in-addr.arpa PTR +nodnssec +trace
The output of these two commands after
Works fine for me.
% bin/dig/dig 1.1.1.1.in-addr.arpa +trace
; <<>> DiG 9.14.8 <<>> 1.1.1.1.in-addr.arpa +trace
;; global options: +cmd
. 331767 IN NS f.root-servers.net.
. 331767 IN NS j.root-servers.net.
.
dig version 9.14.8
Using the following command can not achieve the desired effect, dnssec
information will still be output
dig 1.1.1.1.in-addr.arpa +trace +nodnssec
Normally, the parameters should not be in sequence
--
Best Regards!!
champion_xie
I've a system with two interfaces; a management and a data interface. My
default route is set out to the data interface.
doing a
dig +tcp someIP.com @some.resolver
works fine.
If I want a UDP based query, I have to specify -b option and provide IP of the
interface otherwise it fails.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:18 AM, John Williams john.1...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've a system with two interfaces; a management and a data interface. My
default route is set out to the data interface.
doing a
dig +tcp someIP.com @some.resolver
works fine.
If I want a UDP based query, I have
The following dig query
dig gov +dnssec +noadflag @10.10.10.1
produces the following flags in the header section:
;; flags: qr rd ra ad;
Question - what is the relation with the +dnssec and +noadflag options in the
query. I would think the query would produce a signed response with no ad bit
Pamela Rock wrote:
The following dig query
dig gov +dnssec +noadflag @10.10.10.1
produces the following flags in the header section:
;; flags: qr rd ra ad;
Question - what is the relation with the +dnssec and +noadflag
options in the query. I would think the query would produce
Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Pamela Rock wrote:
Does that imply that +adflag sets the ad bit on the query and the
response where +dnssec only sets the ad bit on the responce?
The AD flag is meaningless in a query. In a response it tells you whether
the server is authoritative or
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Michael Sinatra wrote:
I tried this out and I noticed that both BIND and unbound appear to
behave the same way when using dig in this manner. So both of the
major validating implementations support it. I don't see specific
reference to using the AD flag in queries in
I don't see specific reference to using the AD flag in queries in the
RFCs (at least on a cursory glance), but it's a very useful feature.
We're kind of flying under the RFC's radar, as I understand it. The RFC
says the server must ignore the AD flag in a query. What we do, though,
is clear
11 matches
Mail list logo
