BIND as a caching forwarder on cable

[Kevin Darcy]

The document is a little out of date. _DNS_and_BIND_ is up to Fourth 
Edition. For that matter, I don't think version 6.2 of RedHat is 
cutting-edge either :-)...

                                                                        
                                - Kevin

Peter S. May wrote:

>Believe it or not, since until about two hours ago I wasn't precisely
>sure of the exact meaning of "cache-only nameserver", this thought was
>foreign to me.  Thanks for pointing me in the right direction!
>
>Following that lead, I found the following page a useful source of
>information on setting this up:
>
>http://www.xmission.com/~tknarr/rh62config/bind.html
>
>Thanks again!
>PSM
>
>
>
>
>Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote in message news:<b28uk7$dag$1 at isrv4.isc.org>...
>  
>
>>Peter S. May wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I have dhcpcd set up over eth1 to connect to the internet through a
>>>cable modem, while dhcpd is running over eth0 to hand out IPs to the
>>>other machines in my house.
>>>
>>>Here's the situation: Every time dhcpcd gets client data from my ISP,
>>>the nameservers in resolv.conf are updated--and they _do_ change from
>>>time to time.  I have no idea about the Right Way to pass these
>>>updated nameservers on to the other machines in my network.  What I
>>>have opted to do so far is set up dhcpd to tell my house machines to
>>>use my server (192.168.0.1) as their DNS:
>>>
>>>and then configure BIND to forward requests it can't handle to my
>>>ISP's nameservers:
>>>
>>>In past configurations I have even gone as far as writing a Perl
>>>script to swipe the list of nameservers that dhcpcd got from my ISP
>>>and inserting them into named.conf (this is a new machine, so I did it
>>>by hand for now).  That sort of thing feels too hacky, and I know
>>>there has to be a better way.  Actually, I'm not even sure whether I
>>>should be looking for that better way in BIND or in DHCP, but I figure
>>>an answer for BIND may prove more useful should I ever need named for
>>>anything in the future.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Have you tried setting up your box as a pure caching server, i.e. no 
>>forwarding? You might find that it performs just as well and you're not 
>>subject to the vicissitudes of your ISP's nameserver infrastructure.
>>
>>                                                                        
>>                                        - Kevin
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>