Hello Julian,
> 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.
Using forwarding instead of querying the root servers directly has one more
advantage that you forget to mention: The load on the root servers. If you
*do* want to build a local cache it is much cheaper on the root servers to use
your ISP's DNS server as a forwarder, because you are likely to find the
answer to your query already in it's cache. If you don't want to build a local
cache then of course it is pointless to set up named anyway, and just rely on
resolv.conf.
> 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.
Once again, it's not so much the load on your local DNS server as well as the
fact that if you don't use the forwarders you will be talking to the root
servers all the time. Although I *am* doing that in my setup (unreliable ISP's
DNS server), it is not recommended practice for small LAN's. Maybe the
"forward" statement was not originally intended for this, but it is useful in
a small LAN setup to lighten the load on the root servers.
> > 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.
Do you mean to say that your resolv.conf is empty? Or is the machine running
named still talking to your ISP's DNS server when doing it's own queries? (The
machine is serving others, but not itself?)
Bye,
Leonard.
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
