Howard Lowndes wrote: > I would be interested in ppls views on how much of a sysadmin cardinal > sin is it to have your primary and secondary name servers co-located, > and even more so, on the same subnet - as in /30. > > Don't worry, I don't do it, but I am assessing another operation.
It's really silly, and a nightmare to deal with. When the site disappears the time-to-live caching counter and the time to live on the zone itself start running. Once they expire mail will start bouncing (no such domain). Most ISPs will have a secondary service for their customers, and the ISP pretty much knows the failure modes of their network and will make sure one stays up (eg, by putting it at a colocation facility). I'd really advocate people to have a simple, robust DNS design unless you are one of the dozen people in the world who deeply understand DNS. I've debugged about a dozen sites with severe DNS issues, and almost all of them sprung from people ignoring simplicity and robustness. -- Glen Turner Tel: (08) 8303 3936 or +61 8 8303 3936 Australia's Academic & Research Network www.aarnet.edu.au -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
