d-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of
Cathy Almond
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 6:00 AM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: 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
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 i
> 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/listinf
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)
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:05 PM, 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
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
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 m
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,
Accepted, conclusion still stands: select your tool with care for the
job, don't always use just one. Think what you want to know and how each
tool works.
Let us put this to rest, I think we agree largely.
On 13/10/11 0:09, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 5:46 PM, Sten Carlsen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
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 Carlsen 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
On 12/10/11 22:33, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Sten Carlsen 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
>> res
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Sten Carlsen 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
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
@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.
>> Ho
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
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.
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 informati
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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
