On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 22:07 +0100, Maciej ?enczykowski wrote:
> > @ IN NS 216.104.158.222
> > @ IN NS 216.104.128.37
> > @ IN NS 216.104.128.38
>
> Specifying IP's for NS'es is illegal - NS'es should be hostnames -
> themselves posessing A or AAAA records (for the interest of quick lookup
> times these hostnames should be from within the domain they're NS'ing
> for...) In other words, you should have:
>
> @ IN NS ns1
> @ IN NS ns2
> @ IN NS ns3
> ns1 IN A 216.104.158.222
> ns2 IN A 216.104.128.37
> ns3 IN A 216.104.128.38
>
>
> > wa4phy.net. A 216.104.158.222
> this is just "@ A ..."
> > vortex.wa4phy.net. A 216.104.158.222
> this is just "vortex A ..."
> > ns.wa4phy.net. A 216.104.158.222
> this is just "ns A ..."
> > localhost A 127.0.0.1
> this is weird because it is localhost.wa4phy.net. A 127.0.0.1
> > 1 IN PTR localhost.wa4phy.net.
> Ah so maybe the weird localhost is what you wanted?
>
> Cheers,
> MaZe.
>
If I remember correctly, the format I used came from the book associated
with FreeBSD 2.3 or perhaps earlier. Pretty much verbatim from the old
days of the berkely format of the 80's
I'm no bind guru by any sort of means, and I know there were significant
changes between bind 8 and bind 9. I was more curious why it was
considered lame server whereas prior to CentOS, it worked well, and was
not considered lame under BSD. Everything still works, but there are
some warnings if you look at the report from http://dnsreport.com
plugging in my domain name. Part of that problem is upstream, which I
can get corrected *I think* :-)
Snowman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20051229/4537d704/attachment.htm
