Virtual DNS questiona and reverse lookup table conflicts

[Mikkel L. Ellertson]

Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 15:09:08 -0800,
>   "Daniel B. Thurman" <dant at cdkkt.com> wrote:
>> This whole thing started because it is recommended that you have two dns
>> servers for fail-over/redundancy - of which I haven't been able to solve  
>> (yet).
> 
> Do you have two separate internet connections? If not, there isn't a lot
> of point in having two DNS servers. When your network is out, no one
> is going to be able to contact your servers and providing DNS service during
> the outage isn't going to help. For the typical hobbiest running a server or
> two on a residential or SOHO broadband connection it doesn't make sense to
> have two DNS servers. (If you have two physical servers you probably want to
> have some way for one to take over capabilities of the other, but they both
> don't need to be externally visible at the same time.)
> 
Having slave name server that is not on your machines is probably a
good idea - that way, instead of getting a not found error, they
would get a not available error. With the first case, people will
probably think they have the wrong URL, but with the second case,
they will think that the server is down.

Mikkel
-- 

  Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20081208/2c8b31d2/attachment-0001.sig>