RCODE: Not Implemented

[Mark]

Thank you.  I was confusing QTYPE( A, NS, MX)  with OPCODE( Standard Query,
Inverse Query ).

Can you tell me how to change the OPCODE to something other than "Standard
Query"? I would like to send some inverse queries to my name servers to test
them. Actually I'm not even sure what OPCODES there are. RFC 1035 ,which is
ancient by now ,shows OPCODES 3-15 reserved for future use.

Anyway   I don't see anything in the dig man pages about forming different
"kinds" of queries only different types of RR's inside of standard queries
which is not what I am looking for.

Regards,

Mark


Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote in message
news:29363.965839666 at gromit.rfc1035.com...
> >>>>> "Mark" == Mark  <msanp at earthlink.net> writes:
>
>     Mark> When querying my name servers for a resource record type
>     Mark> that I am sure they don't implement ( SRV, SIG ) named
>     Mark> ummmm........ works.  That is it tells me that there aren't
>     Mark> any such records.
>
> Er, the output from dig showed that. The answer section of the reply
> was empty.
>
>     Mark> I thought that named would respond with
>     Mark> the RCODE in the response packet set to "NOT IMPLEMENTED" at
>     Mark> least for the older name servers.  I get this behavior from
>     Mark> BIND 4.9.7, 8.1.2 & 8.2.2 name servers.
>
> Are you sure about that? Are these servers returning NOTIMP if you ask
> them for a SIG record? I would expect them to either return NXDOMAIN
> or NOERROR with an empty answer section. NOTIMP should be returned
> when the name server doesn't implement the opcode on the lookup. The
> opcode would denote things like QUERTY, UPDATE, NOTIFY, IQUERY and
> stuff like that, not the record type for the name that's been looked
> up. The record type is specified in the query's QTYPE field.
>
>     Mark> I notice that nslookup won't even let you
>     Mark> send such a query if it doesn't recognize the RR type.
>
> All the more reason to put a bullet in nslookup...
>
>     Mark> when does named reply with "NOT IMPLEMENTED"??
>
> See above. Or lines 279-312 of ns_req.c in BIND8.
>
>     Mark> $ dig SIG cookie.com
>
>     Mark> ; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> SIG cookie.com
>     MarK> ; (1 server found)
>     Mark> ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
>     Mark> ;; got answer:
>     Mark> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10
>   ^ dig set the opcode to QUERY
>     (surprise, surprise!)
>     Mark> ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL:
2
>      ^ Look ma! No answers!
>
>     Mark> ;; QUERY SECTION:
>     Mark  ;; cookie.com, type = SIG, class = IN
>
> Notice there's no ANSWER SECTION.....
>
>     Mark> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
>     Mark> cookie.com.  2D IN NS INTERPAGE.NET.
>     Mark> cookie.com.  2D IN NS ADMIRAL.INTERPAGE.NET.
>
>     Mark> ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
>     Mark> ADMIRAL.INTERPAGE.NET.  2D IN A 204.75.164.2
>     Mark> INTERPAGE.NET.          2D IN A 204.75.164.1
>
>
>