nslookup

Scot Mc Pherson behomet at home.com
Sat Jul 14 12:26:25 PDT 2001


Sure...Have you looked in your daemon.log ?? You might find that a lot of
your db statements aren't working. The structure of the files in the
strictest sense of the word, didn't change, but BIND 8 was more forgiving
and certain mistakes and oversights didn't effect named, but in 9 they must
be correct. for example TLLs



Scot Mc Pherson
~Linux is a journey, not a guided tour~



----- Original Message -----
From: David A. Bandel <david at pananix.com>
To: <lfs-discuss at linuxfromscratch.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: nslookup


> Scot Mc Pherson wrote:
> >
> > Actually BIND9 works very well. It is likely that you aren't compiling
it or
> > setting it up properly if its complaining about anything. The conf and
db
> > files are set up quite a bit differently, infact as different as BIND4
and
> > BIND8 were.
>
> My experience was a little different.  nslookup will complain because
> it's supposedly deprecated and slated for removal (OK with me, I always
> liked dig better anyway -- dig's output can be used directly as a db
> file).
>
> The /etc/named.conf file syntax is the same, just some different
> statements inside, but nothing like the difference between 4 and 8.  My
> /etc/named.conf worked from 8 to 9, no conversion needed.  As for the db
> files, mine worked just fine as well.  What's different here?  That I
> can see, nothing apart from the ability to include the ipv6 AAAA RRs.
>
> Can you elaborate please?
>
> Ciao,
>
> David A. Bandel
> --
> Focus on the dream, not the competition.
> -- Nemesis Racing Team motto
> --
> Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
> and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message
>

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list