From: Chuck Sent: August 16, 2009 18:17
I recommend a highly secured master that is not queried by any
clients (preferably in a network/vlan your clients can't even
access)... then configure one-way zone transfers to 2 or more slave
servers which you configure your clients to point to.
From: Hugh E Cruickshank Sent: August 14, 2009 14:18
I am looking for some possible recommendations on the handling of our
internal DNS services. First some background...
I would like to express my appreciation to all those that responded to
my request (particularly Robert). I do not have
You could get really simple if your a small shop and just use dnsmasq.
Although, I'm not sure it meets all of your needs.
Matt
--
Mathew S. McCarrell
Clarkson University '10
mccar...@gmail.com
mccar...@clarkson.edu
1-518-314-9214
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank
Chuck wrote:
I recommend a highly secured master that is not queried by any clients
(preferably in a network/vlan your clients can't even access)... then
configure one-way zone transfers to 2 or more slave servers which you
configure your clients to point to. Maintain your zone files in
I recommend a highly secured master that is not queried by any clients
(preferably in a network/vlan your clients can't even access)... then
configure one-way zone transfers to 2 or more slave servers which you
configure your clients to point to. Maintain your zone files in rcs of some
sort... For
On Friday 14 August 2009 23:31, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
If you are worried about valid config then you should be using
the tools that
come with Bind instead of relying on some third party software.
named-checkconf for checking the configuration of Bind
named-checkzone for
Hi All:
I am looking for some possible recommendations on the handling of our
internal DNS services. First some background...
Until recently our entire network was located within a single facility
with internal DNS services provided by our CentOS 4.7 (using BIND).
While I had problems with
On Friday 14 August 2009 17:17, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
Here are my questions...
1. Is the BIND master/slave the appropriate approach?
Yes, you should already have something like this in case the main/master
server would fail.
2. Can I have each subnet be a master for itself and a
From: Robert Spangler Sent: August 14, 2009 16:18
On Friday 14 August 2009 17:17, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
Here are my questions...
1. Is the BIND master/slave the appropriate approach?
Yes, you should already have something like this in case the
main/master server would fail.
I
On Friday 14 August 2009 21:29, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
From: Robert Spangler Sent: August 14, 2009 16:18
On Friday 14 August 2009 17:17, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
Here are my questions...
1. Is the BIND master/slave the appropriate approach?
Yes, you should already
From: Robert Spangler Sent: August 14, 2009 19:22
I would suggest placing one on each site. That way you can cut
the traffic between sites for DNS lookups. I would also ensure that
only one does the updates per domain.
That makes sense and is essentially what I was planning to do.
The
Hugh:
I will check those out but what about the ease of use factor. Would
you suggest something like webmin over had tailoring the config files?
I use Webmin for managing DNS. It is a great tool and makes
life much easier.
Neil
--
Neil Aggarwal, (281)846-8957, www.JAMMConsulting.com
Will
12 matches
Mail list logo
