Re: Configuring BIND - DNS server
On 3/8/07, Ariel Biener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The right (well, I am not Paul Vixie but, this is the general consensus) is to split the DNS setup into the following: 1. Authoritative, a set of name servers that only respond to queries of data sets that are local to them. Used for you and others around the world to know about stuff in your domains/zones. These have port 53 of both tcp and udp open to your network and to the world. 2. Caching only, used for your network to resolve stuff that is foreign to your own zones. These are not accessible from the world, and are only accessible to you/your clients. The idea is that all your applications/computers/devices will have the caching only NS defined as their resolver (with a backup to 1-2 ISP based NSs that are available to you due to buying transit from them). I don't see any reason to split. I only have one server machine, and I'm using the same DNS server for both purposes. It works. Of course, if you want you can use my DNS server as your own resolver, but I don't care. By the way, Netvision also uses the same 2 name servers for both purposes. You can use their name servers too as your own resolver, even if you're not a customer. And the same is with all ISP's I know. By the way, I'm using the same Linux machine to run DNS (BIND), mail (sendmail), and HTTP (apache) - and it works. P.S. How do I check which version of BIND I'm using? I usually do rpm -q bind, why ? what do you do ? /path/to/named -v (usually /usr/sbin/named in Linux). Here's the result on my server: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ /usr/sbin/named -v BIND 9.2.1 Uri. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Configuring BIND - DNS server
On Saturday 10 March 2007 15:50, Uri Even-Chen wrote: I don't see any reason to split. I only have one server machine, and I'm using the same DNS server for both purposes. It works. Of course, if you want you can use my DNS server as your own resolver, but I don't care. By the way, Netvision also uses the same 2 name servers for both purposes. You can use their name servers too as your own resolver, even if you're not a customer. And the same is with all ISP's I know. That is not correct, and in general, no one will police you into doing things right. Also, no one can police you into learning anything. I thought that you, just like I and others, are on this list to both learn and help. There are quite a number of ISPs (big ones) in Israel who have split their authoritative DNS service, and do not provide recursive services to the world. The fact Netvision are not doing it right doesn't mean a thing. You can also test your domain at www.dnsreport.com and see what you are doing right and what you are not doing right. By the way, alot of things done the wrong way work. That doesn't make them right. By the way, I'm using the same Linux machine to run DNS (BIND), mail (sendmail), and HTTP (apache) - and it works. Good for you. --Ariel -- Ariel Biener e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: http://www.tau.ac.il/~ariel/pgp.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How do I encode Hebrew in PHP?
On 07/03/07, Ira Abramov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could get a voice line from HOT. It includes 2000 free minutes to BEZEQ numbers. did they solve the problems of sending faxes over those voip lines? Sorry for the late reply. I have hot VOIP service at home (nesher). I can send and receive faxes. So it works. Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com/what_is/voip.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why doesn't traceroute work for me?
On 08/03/07, Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sound like your firewall mangles the TTL of outgoing packets. I found tcptraceroute to work better through most firewalls. I'm not sure about this situation because usually these firewalls will answer the first hop but won't let the packets through to the next hops. (the standard traceroute uses UDP packets). --Amos
