Rogers static name

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:05:15AM -0400, Kevin Cozens wrote:
> IIRC, nslookup was being dropped in favour of dig. Does anyone know
> (or remember) what is wrong with nslookup or why dig was supposed to
> be better? If dig's output isn't that good compared to nslookup I
> would have thought there would have been more complaints about using
> dig to replace nslookup. Now it seems as if host may have been
> created to fix the issues of dig that was supposed to be better than
> nslookup.

nslookup was buggy in certain conditions, and is replaced by 'host'.

If would for example do a reverse lookup on the specified server and
if that failed, it would reply as if the thing you asked it to lookup
didn't exist, even though all that didn't exist was a reverse name for
the dns server.  That has eventually been fixed, but there are other
issues apparently.

> It is interesting to compare the outputs of nslookup, dig, and host.
> Without any command line options, nslookup and host provide almost
> the same information but its better formatted from host and host
> adds the mail exchanger information. dig provides a bunch of
> information (eg. the TTL values) that the other two don't provide
> (by default) but its output is more cryptic if you are looking
> beyond a simple name IP mapping in its output.

-- 
Len Sorensen
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists