On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 13:31 -0800, Michael Rock wrote:
> Thanks Jim but you already established that in the
> links you posted. I was asking him why he writes
> never never put both caching and bind on the same box.
>
> I posted my configuration below so it just seems like
> resource and expense overkill to setup a separate box
> just for DNS queries, rather than make use of the two
> bind servers.
>
I am trying really hard to explain it...
You have EITHER a real DNS server ... that will lookup all zones,
including ones it controls ... (ie it works for both controlled zones
and all the others, just like caching nameserver)
OR
You have caching-nameserver installed ... which means, you do not want
to control any zones, just have a local nameserver.
SO
You don't need caching-nameserver if you have a real nameserver
installed on a box.
> --- Jim Perrin <jperrin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 11/15/05, Michael Rock <mikerocks65@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok guys ... this is ONLY an issue IF you have
> > > > caching-nameserver AND
> > > > bind installed ... and if you used the
> > named.conf
> > > > from caching-
> > > > nameserver.
> > > >
> > > > RH says to NOT install caching-nameserver and a
> > real
> > > > name server on the
> > > > same machine ...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Excuse my ignorance on this subject, been looking
> > for
> > > a link that explains the policy and why? Right
> > now I
> > > have primary and secondary name servers hosting
> > many
> > > domains and web server applications that need to
> > > resolve DNS from these servers. Then I have a
> > handful
> > > of workstations that use these servers for regular
> > DNS
> > > queries.
> > >
> > > This will be significant work/expense and to find
> > > space for it just to separate the caching name
> > server
> > > to a separate box just so the stations can have
> > DNS
> > > queries.
> > >
> > > Been doing it this way for years without a
> > problem, so
> > > any info you can pass on.
> > >
> >
> > Best documentation I can find is from one a
> > redhatter who closed one
> > of the caching-nameserver issues as not-a-bug. his
> > explanation follows
> > thusly:
> >
> >
> > This is not an issue with the bind-* package, but
> > with the
> > caching-nameserver package.
> >
> > No bind-* package supplies any named configuration
> > files,
> > unless none exist on the system, when only
> > rndc.conf, rndc.key,
> > and the bare minimum named.conf sufficient to allow
> > named to
> > run are installed.
> >
> > When you install the 'caching-nameserver' package,
> > which consists
> > entirely of the named configuration files, you are
> > asking for
> > a caching-nameserver named configuration to be
> > installed.
> >
> > If you want to customize your named configuration
> > files, and run
> > something other / more than a caching-only
> > nameserver, uninstall
> > the caching-nameserver package.
> >
> > Unless caching-nameserver replaces any existing
> > named configuration
> > files on installation / upgrade, there would be no
> > way of guaranteeing
> > after installation that a caching-nameserver was in
> > place afterwards,
> > and no way of upgrading these configuration files.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jim Perrin
> > System Architect - UIT
> > Ft Gordon & US Army Signal Center
> > _______________________________________________
> > CentOS mailing list
> > CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20051115/63de8bf5/attachment.bin
