[177191] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: whois server features
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (shawn wilson)
Wed Jan 7 15:18:35 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <DB457FDA-44BF-4977-98CA-EE81F94BA714@pch.net>
From: shawn wilson <ag4ve.us@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:18:07 -0500
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
>>> So, you=E2=80=99re not running into a poorly-documented mystery, you=E2=
=80=99ve run afoul of one of the rotten armpits of the shub-Internet.
>>>
>> So there's no consensus between NICs for the information they should
>> have in whois and what search mechanisms they should provide? I guess
>> what you're saying is that whois is just a protocol definition and
>> nothing else?
>
> Correct. It gets you a blob of text. Sometimes, a blob is just a blob. =
Other times, it contains what _appear_ to be key-value pairs, but are inst=
ead loosely-formatted text. Other times, it contains textually-represented=
key-value pairs that are programmatically generated from an actual databas=
e, and can thus be re-imported into another database. Depends what=E2=80=
=99s on the back end.
>
This is not the response I was looking for (and reading the RFC makes
me feel even worse).
Is there a better mechanism for querying NICs for host/owner information?
