On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Deryk Robosson wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2000, Georges Heinesch wrote:
>
> > > Normally one is sufficient, and the second one is a backup in case
> > > the first server is down. But since the PC supports multiple DNS
> > > addresses, I see no reason *not* to enter them both.
> >
> > This might now be a real dummy question, but why do the computers on
> > the LAN require the DNS entry(entries) since the Gateway has the
> > addresses already ???
It doesn't matter that the gateway knows the DNS IP addresses, because
each machine is doing its own lookups, and there's now way for those
requests to get automatically redirected to the proper servers. IP-NAT
only remaps the *source* IP addresses, not the destination.
OTOH, SOCKS does DNS lookups from the gateway, so SOCKS solves the DNS IP
problem, but that only helps if you have SOCKS client support on the other
machines.
>
> Because 9 time out of 10 the gateway isn't running named and by not having
> entries in hosts (and lmhosts for windows machines if using SMB) will
> trigger DoD on any machine that is setup for it by necessity of a name
> lookup.
I think you're giving the right answer to the wrong question. :-)
Entries in Hosts and/or Lmhosts should indeed be used to define names for
the *local* machines, but DNS lookups with the proper server IP addresses
are still needed for outside locations. And empirically, having proper
entries in Hosts/Lmhosts does *not* prevent superfluous DNS queries,
though there might be some magic registry parameters that can rearrange
the priorities.
Fred Wright
--
To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe miamidx-talk-ml" to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]". For help on list commands send "help" to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
