At 12:58 AM 1/8/02 +0100, you wrote: > Hi again Julian, > > > The forwarding statement only changes HOW it goes > > about getting names resolved, it doesn't stop it from caching the results. > > > Given the setup I was talking about in the first place was four > machines on a > > LAN, one of which was a Linbox running bind, there's no point in > running a DNS > > server in the first place if all I'm going to do is concentrate all DNS > request > > to the Linbox then pass them up to my ISP's DNS server, is there? I > might as > > well point each of my LAN workstations at my ISP's DNS server and be > done with > > it. They'd all go my ISP's server individually for their answers. > > Well, the first quote contradicts the second.
Not in a total system view ... see next para. > The difference is the caching >done on your local DNS server (which is only forwarding request for which it >can't find the answer in it's cache iiuc). The first lookup to fe >www.redhat.com is forwarded to the forward DNS, but the second is taken from >the cache. Not a lot less traffic in this specific setup, but it *does* >reduce >traffic. The only time you "lose" with no local cache is when you make a significant number of repeat hits from the local LAN, but because every new DNS request is summarily passed off to the ISP's server, which is busy looking after all his other clients anyway, I'm sure it evens out. Another point:- given that by choosing a forwarding scenario you've already determined implicitly that the speed and response of your ISP's DNS server is fast enough (because you summarily forward all requests to him), it matters little from a client's point of view if the result is cached in his server or yours. From system point of view, though, one choice means paying the price of a local DNS service, the other doesn't. So it isn't a contradiction at all. Caching is caching, and if the link between you and your ISP is fast enough, and cheap enough (i.e. not metered), then it doesn't matter on a small LAN if the cache is located on your machine or his. Again, though, it's perfectly valid to use your ISP's server in a caching mode if you want local caching, but want to offload the searching job from your own machine. But my view is that if you have a single DNS server, and are contemplating forwarding because the server can't handle the load, then you don't need the DNS server in the first place. Having said all that, I'm doing it just for the fun and experience learned :-) > > Lastly, the issue of the IP stack resolver on your DNS server itself. > > Actually, the DNS server entries in resolv.conf aren't necessary if the > DNS box > > is set to use itself for DNS, which is typical. > > You mean you don't need to enter "127.0.0.1" in resolv.conf? No I don't. I was referring to the ISP's numbers. >I would assume >you need to point the IP stack to the (locally running) DNS server to use it >to resolve names... I would think that too. But I don't know that the link to localhost isn't implicit - it may be. My resolv.conf doesn't have 127.0.0.1 in it. Thanks for sharing in the discussion! Julian. ================================== > Bye, > > Leonard. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Redhat-list mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list ---------------------------------------------------------------- Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after me ... Julian Opificius. ICQ 3268206. ---------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
