Brad Fritz wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:26:54 EST mds wrote:
> I still think using two instances of dnscache in front of two
> instances of tinydns would be a cleaner solution if you need
> separate DMZ and LAN namespaces. Otherwise you might end up
> in routing kludge hell getting this to work.
2 instances of dnscache
2 instances of tinydns
are much better than one dnscache imo. I noticed
that right away when he mentioned it as a goal.
Rung some bells that did. Don't know why, just
feels icky, heh.
and also along the lines of what Charles said,
is that an ICMP reply from the DNS client of a
problem needs to be quickly tracked down w/tcpdump
on the DMZ. I'll read your threads and throw
another pair of eyes on the numbers, also to see
if that helps.
good luck,
matt
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
