2 name servers one ip
pamaral at meganet.net
Thu Sep 7 20:50:13 UTC 2006
The matching/mis-matching PTR shouldn't be an issue has I want to match my
current dns hostname.
Aside from the PTR issue I'm just trying to see if this is going to cause me
any problems before I do. I mean as far as I can tell all the root servers
care about is the forward record.
P.A > -----Original Message-----
P.A > From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org] On
P.A > Behalf Of Kevin Darcy
P.A > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 3:46 PM
P.A > To: comp-protocols-dns-bind at isc.org
P.A > Subject: Re: 2 name servers one ip
P.A > Paul A wrote:
P.A > > I recently took over a name server that I want to join with my
P.A > current name
P.A > > server.
P.A > > I was thinking of having two A RRs, for the current name server and
P.A > the
P.A > > server I just took over, pointing to the same ip.
P.A > > Example:
P.A > >
P.A > > Ns1.currentns.com would point to 188.8.131.52 and so would ns1.newns.com.
P.A > >
P.A > > I want to do this so that all customers currently pointing their
P.A > zones to
P.A > > ns1.newns.com don't have to make modifications with the NICs.
P.A > >
P.A > > I know this is obviously possible but is this against the RFC's and
P.A > is it
P.A > > recommended or not ?
P.A > >
P.A > I don't think this is against the RFCs. You are required to have at
P.A > least 2 actual nameservers for any given zone, but I don't think
P.A > there's
P.A > any restriction on 1, both or all of those nameservers being referred
P.A > to
P.A > by multiple names. If there were such a restriction, then all of those
P.A > folks who subscribe to the cult belief that NS records should always
P.A > be
P.A > "in-zone" (i.e. should always point to a name that's inside the zone
P.A > for
P.A > which the NS record exists), would be violating that restriction left
P.A > and right.
P.A > The main problem, I think, with having multiple names resolve to the
P.A > same IP address, is how to provide matching forward and reverse
P.A > records.
P.A > Adding a reverse record for every name that points to a particular
P.A > address is not scalable of course, but how does one prioritize among
P.A > those names, to decide which one gets a matching PTR record?
P.A > - Kevin
More information about the bind-users