> -----Original Message----- > From: shrike-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:shrike-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Iain Buchanan > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:33 AM > To: shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Modified Split DNS Question > > > On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 14:21, Jake McHenry wrote: > > > On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 13:52, Jake McHenry wrote: > > > [massive quoted message snipped] > > > > > > > My second question still stands though, is there a way for > > > me to have > > > > dns work for all the client machines without using the > > > hosts file on > > > > the windows boxes? > > > [snip] > > > > > > What about DHCP? I haven't read all of your posts, so I > > > don't know if you've set it up or not, but DHCP will let you > > > set the clients DNS search order. Also, I found it _much_ > > > easier than setting up a DNS server. > > > > I'm not using dhcp because of remote administration. I have ports > > being forwarded in the router to the private ipaddresses, > so to know > > what machine I'm connecting to, I cannot implement dhcp. > > I don't quite understand this reason :) If the clients used > an internal dhcp server to allocate static ip addresses and > dns address, then your router could still forward remote > connections to the right machine. > This is in fact what I do. I have a dns and dhcp server > (same machine). The dhcp server hands out static and dynamic > ip addresses, and points clients to the internal dns server > for name lookups. The dns server makes those lookups on > behalf of the local client and then caches the results, so > that next time the local dns server doesn't have to contact > the remote (and hence slower) dns server. > > And then on top of that, connections to the firewall (same machine yet > again) from outside get forwarded (or dropped) depending on > the port, and dns requests that try to go through the > firewall from local machines (except the caching dns server) > get dropped because I want them to use my local dns... > > It can sound complicated, but its quite simple really! > > > All of the clients use only one name server, being > 192.168.1.98, the > > only dns server in use. > > Sounds ok with the above setup. Please let me know if there > are limitations to this setup such that it doesn't fulfill > your requirements. > > Regards, > -- > Iain Buchanan <iain@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > -- > Shrike-list mailing list > Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike> -list > Anything will fulfill my requirements as long as it works. But I'm not sure that the dns server and setup of ip addresses is the problem. I would like to know if there is a way around using the hosts files on the workstations. The only reason I set up the private dns zones was to try to acomplish this. Without the hosts file, when the workstations access nittanytravel.com (local server), the local server responds with the public IP (which is the ip on the outside interface of the router). Then all the workstations in our main office end up in the logs (email and web) as ntlh.nittanytravel.com. This was not a problem for me, everything works, but my boss wants to view what each machine does. Hence my problem. Right now everything is working, but I spent 4 hours today transferring the new hosts file to all the workstations. (I wasn't thinking at the time to add it to their login script). I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I would like a solution where I don't have to use the hosts file, and all of the workstations show up in the logs with their private ip, not the public. Does your solution provide this? From what I understand, it's basically the same as I have now, except for the dhcp server. Thanks, Jake McHenry Nittany Travel MIS Coordinator http://www.nittanytravel.com -- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list
