On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Brian Kifiak wrote:
> > It's also a bad idea to put both of your nameservers on the same network,
>
> That's not an absolute truth. It's quite common for small to medium
> sized networks to only have one point of presence. If that point
> goes down it doesn't matter that your DNS doesn't work -- everything
> it resolves is offline anyway. Is it really worth the extra cost to
> setup completely independant nameservers so that a user would get a
> "could not find hostname" error instead of "network unreachable"?
Yes, some broken resolver/mail system combinations will bounce "No such
domain" mail early rather than queuing "Host unreachable" mail.
Especially given some of the completely weird anti-spam stuff out there.
For the users I've ever had the administrative overhead of getting
Resource Record changes at the ISP in conjunction with local ones was
worth the perception that mail could ever get lost. Your operational
parameters may be different.
It's normally not an extra cost- either exchanging secondaries with
another small company or having your ISP host DNS is essentially free.
Finally, it's always a good idea to plan for robust and scalable
infrastructure- that's one less thing to worry about if/when there are
problems- instead of waiting for a new authoritative server to propogate
you can just change Resource Records when you do end up having to
externally host a Web site, change physical locations due to office
growth, switch providers, etc.
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
PSB#9280
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
