We do run BIND on our Linux box and cache on Namesrv from Linux. Richard Feldman Senior IT Architect Kelly, Douglas / Westfair Foods Ltd. Ph:(403)291-6339 Fax:(403)291-6585
-----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Boyes Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 9:24 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: VM/TCPIP question > Does this mean that if you are using a DNS, in our case a > Namesrv as a secondary caching DNS, that you don't require the 'HOSTS' > set of files? IMHO, yes (with two caveats). About the only thing that should be in a local hosts file in these days should be IPv4 and IPv6 entries for all your local interfaces (the ones *directly* attached to this stack) and for the loopback address (127.0.0.1). DNS is absolutely the way to go for everything else. See: [RFC-1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. [RFC-1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. for useful discussion of why host files are deprecated. Seriously consider a small Linux guest running BIND instead of NAMESRV. It's more functional, and a lot easier to maintain. -- db
