On 29.6.2015 18:33, Matt . wrote:
Hi Petr,
No problem at all! I can remove/move things easily... but this
splitbrain really makes these 2 networks standing on their own, which
is what I need.
Both are provisioned but not all the same. It gives me the flexibility
we need, that's why it's
On 29.6.2015 13:16, Matt . wrote:
Hi,
The zones are on both servers, just not all records are, this has a
reason. One server is maintained by a script, the other one only
forwards to it if needed.
The idea is that it does a local lookup, when it doesn't find the
record locally, it
Hi Petr,
Yes I understand why this is not possible. The idea was to have a
managed DNS server from scripting and one for other usage by clients
who only need to know about the unknown records on Server1, this as
it should forward most and only do specific local lookups.
Your subdomain solution
On 29.6.2015 14:07, Matt . wrote:
Hi Petr,
Bot servers have zone:
domain.tld
Server1 (192.168.1.1) has:
domain.tld
foo A 192.168.1.10
bar A 192.168.1.20
Server2 (192.168.2.1) has:
domain.tld
candy A 192.168.2.100
I have a forward first on Server1 to the IP of
On 27.6.2015 19:06, Matt . wrote:
Hi All,
When I add a forwarder with policy to forward first, there is only
forwarder and not a fallback to local when the record doesn't exist on
the forward server.
When I remove the forwardserver, the local lookup works great again.
Is this known to
Hi,
The zones are on both servers, just not all records are, this has a
reason. One server is maintained by a script, the other one only
forwards to it if needed.
The idea is that it does a local lookup, when it doesn't find the
record locally, it forwards to it's forwarder to see if it has an
Hi Petr,
Bot servers have zone:
domain.tld
Server1 (192.168.1.1) has:
domain.tld
foo A 192.168.1.10
bar A 192.168.1.20
Server2 (192.168.2.1) has:
domain.tld
candy A 192.168.2.100
I have a forward first on Server1 to the IP of Server2
So when my DNS server on my client is 192.168.1.1
On 29.6.2015 16:10, Matt . wrote:
Hi Petr,
Yes I understand why this is not possible. The idea was to have a
managed DNS server from scripting and one for other usage by clients
who only need to know about the unknown records on Server1, this as
it should forward most and only do specific
Hi,
Because it can happen that hostnames are used twice, but one for each network.
This sounds a little bit odd, but it has something todo with hostnames
that are needed, public names and internal names. But as both networks
have their own DNS servers, some records are just not provisioned so
On 29.6.2015 18:22, Matt . wrote:
Hi,
Because it can happen that hostnames are used twice, but one for each network.
This sounds a little bit odd, but it has something todo with hostnames
that are needed, public names and internal names. But as both networks
have their own DNS servers,
Hi Petr,
No problem at all! I can remove/move things easily... but this
splitbrain really makes these 2 networks standing on their own, which
is what I need.
Both are provisioned but not all the same. It gives me the flexibility
we need, that's why it's not difficult to move, as it's flexible at
Hi All,
When I add a forwarder with policy to forward first, there is only
forwarder and not a fallback to local when the record doesn't exist on
the forward server.
When I remove the forwardserver, the local lookup works great again.
Is this known to 3.0 servers or has it been a bug or am I
12 matches
Mail list logo
