Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:26:46 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: Studded@dal.net Cc: lists@tar.com, terry@lambert.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Moving to a more current BIND Message-ID: <199708041726.KAA04299@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199708032359.QAA21392@mail.san.rr.com> from "Studded" at Aug 3, 97 04:58:42 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Someone has stated that their new "bind" is complaining about my > >use of an alias record as the name of my DNS server. > > This has always been an error, but BIND 8.1.1 is more vocal about > it now. TMK BIND 4.9.6 does not exhibit any differences in relation to > this from the BIND 4.9.4 we had in the tree. In any case, what you're > doing will still work, and 8.1.1 allows you to send those error messages > to /dev/null if you like. Not on other peoples machines, I can't. > >This is a bogus thing for it to do, since it is imperitive that > >you be able to use a DNS rotor for DNS services, if you have > >equivalent servers for reasons of fault tolerance. > > Without going into too much detail that's better left for > bind-users@vix.com, a dns rotary is certainly not "imperative," and BIND > is actually pretty smart about sending its queries to the one of your name > servers that is in the best network position to it. My particular use is to allow moving my secondary all over creation as the whim takes me. That is because my secondary is a box which can be booted into multiple OS's, each of which has a different IP address. The reasoning behind this is to ensure that my MX records don't point to a machine that has a mail demon, but none of the original accounts. I can live with my secondary MX queueing up mail. I can *not* live with my mail being refused for the lack of a correctly named account at the primary MX's IP address. > >So I could live without the latest "bind" being in wide use until > >that is corrected so that I can once again have my DNS server > >have as high an availability as many WWW servers... I happen > >to think DNS is a tad more important. 8-|. > > I submit that you are incorrect in a number of particulars.. feel > free to write me if you'd like to hash this out some more. See above. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708041726.KAA04299>