Hi, I would assume that is because for some reason netname is not unique, If you run whois -h whois.ripe.net CYNTHIA-V6-TEST -r You can see my point, 2 inet6num with the same netname. - Cynthia On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:47 PM Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg < db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

In message <90575aee-1245-9de6-86ac-417c3614d12c@fud.no>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:

...

* Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg

...

--list-versions 194.162.0.0 --list-versions DE-ECOTEL-950515

I am having serious trouble understanding why this isn't working.

If someone could explain, I'd appreciate it.

a) Use an unambiguous primary/lookup key, e.g.:

$ whois -h whois.ripe.net -- --list-versions 194.162.0.0/16

Ahhhhhhh! Thank you! This is the magic I was missing. And it makes perfect sense, now that you say it.

...

b) «netname objects» don't exist, so no, not supposed to work.

That comment makes no sense however. Those objects -do- exist in the data base and a normal WHOIS query finds them. So I'm really still not clear on why I can't apply --list-versions and --show-version to them.

Regards, rfg

Because --list-versions & --show-version require a single object (which also happens to be a primary key) rather than a list. I'm certainly not sure what the output of --list-versions should look like against multiple objects, and --show-version makes no sense against multiple objects IMHO. If you want to achieve this, you need to handle this in your own script/wrapper. I don't think this makes sense for the db to do for you. Ian -----Original Message----- From: db-wg <db-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg Sent: 25 June 2019 23:21 To: Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> Cc: DB-WG <db-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [db-wg] --list-versions In message <CAKw1M3NXXAFLZrRTehzu5SFYiNCABg4vdKQPXgf_As5+vTOOdw@mail.gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Cynthia_Revstr=C3=B6m?= <me@cynthia.re> wrote:

I would assume that is because for some reason netname is not unique, If you run whois -h whois.ripe.net CYNTHIA-V6-TEST -r You can see my point, 2 inet6num with the same netname.

I understand that a netname can (and often does) correlate to multiple IP address blocks. That fact, by itself, does not clarify why it would either be difficult or impossible to provide the --list-versions and --show-version functionality for netnames. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more visit the Mimecast website.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:47:11AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote:

...

b) ??netname objects?? don't exist, so no, not supposed to work.

That comment makes no sense however. Those objects -do- exist in the

No, they don't. Look into the documentation, please. Alternatively try 'whois -q types'.

data base and a normal WHOIS query finds them. So I'm really still

Because they are lookup keys. Look into the documentation, please. $ whois -t inetnum|grep netname netname: [mandatory] [single] [lookup key]

not clear on why I can't apply --list-versions and --show-version to them.

Piotr -- Piotr Strzyżewski Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre Gliwice, Poland