[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[firstname.lastname@example.org: Re: ot? djbdns question]
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: [firstname.lastname@example.org: Re: ot? djbdns question]
- From: Seth Arnold <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:50:44 -0800
- Content-Disposition: inline
- Mail-Followup-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
Brian (who has the coolest email address I know) has corrected me; it
does *not* take two computers to run both tinydns and dnscache.
Which is good.
Thank you Brian. :)
----- Forwarded message from Brian Kifiak <email@example.com> -----
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:42:38 -0800
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:40:35 -0600
From: Brian Kifiak <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Seth Arnold <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: ot? djbdns question
In-Reply-To: <20010129212825.F3209@willamette.edu>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 09:28:25PM -0800
> Well, I stand by what I said. If tinydns can't do caching, and if
> dnscache can't do serving -- and if they both require binding to
> UDP port 53, as I would assume they do -- then I can't see how one
> machine can do the job.
If you care about the authorative bit on DNS replies, run tinydns on
one IP and dnscache on another. (This is one of several solutions.)
If you don't care about the authorative bit, setup dnscache on an
external IP and tinydns on a loopback or dummy IP and have dnscache
selectively query the private tinydns.
----- End forwarded message -----
``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all
really impressed down here, I can tell you.''