1 |
I appreciate all the replies, and yes Michael you're correct the original |
2 |
question was in regards to a system having different "base" (host) names for |
3 |
different NICs. IOW the Windows Domain Controller that eth0 is connected to |
4 |
records eth0 in it's DNS table as gentoo.windowsdoman.local. In addition in |
5 |
/etc/make.conf the the following is declared: |
6 |
eth0_dns_domainname="windowsdomain.local" and |
7 |
eth0_nis_domainname="windowsdomain" no nis or dns domainname is declared for |
8 |
eth1 or eth2 as that causes problems. I'll probably also configure BIND to |
9 |
act as a secondary DNS for the domain controller listing on eth0 and eth1. |
10 |
|
11 |
Now with regards to eth1, it is my intent to configure eth1 as with the |
12 |
machines only public IP address (69.12.134.79), and configure BIND to listen |
13 |
on eth1 as a secondary domain name server, the primary domain name server |
14 |
would have an "A Record" for 69.12.134.79 and it would be named |
15 |
ns.somedomainname.com. IOW it would have a different "base" name (ns) than |
16 |
eth0 (gentoo). My question is whether or not this is valid/"legal"/okay, |
17 |
i.e. is it likely to cause any problems? |
18 |
|
19 |
I did see Ruben's comment about named "views" and it looks like that may be |
20 |
something to investigate. |
21 |
|
22 |
Any further comments/suggestions welcome. |
23 |
|
24 |
Thanks, |
25 |
Bob Young |
26 |
San Jose, CA |
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
-----Original Message----- |
31 |
From: Michal 'vorner' Vaner [mailto:vorner@×××.cz] |
32 |
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 2:17 PM |
33 |
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o |
34 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] A DNS question. |
35 |
|
36 |
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 03:21:52PM -0600, Dan Farrell wrote: |
37 |
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 22:04:59 +0100 |
38 |
> "Michal 'vorner' Vaner" <vorner@×××.cz> wrote: |
39 |
> |
40 |
> > Hello, |
41 |
> > |
42 |
> > On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 11:17:52AM -0800, Bob Young wrote: |
43 |
> > > Obviously on a given system each NIC is usually connected to a |
44 |
> > > different domain, my question is, whether or not it |
45 |
> > > is /legal/possible/okay to use different *hostnames* on different |
46 |
> > > NICs? |
47 |
> > |
48 |
> > AFAIK, you can have multiple names for one IP and multiple IPs for one |
49 |
> > name (there are more ways to do that). So, I see no reason why anyone |
50 |
> > would ever forgive you to have different name for each of IP addresses |
51 |
> > your computer has. The other question is if you really want to do |
52 |
> > that, because there might be applications not expecting your computer |
53 |
> > is "schizophrenic" in such way and go nutty. |
54 |
> > |
55 |
> > With regards |
56 |
> > |
57 |
> on the contrary, there are good reasons to have more than one name for |
58 |
> a single computer. For example, say I have a server 'zeus.mydomain' |
59 |
> that also does mail. If I name the mailserver 'mail.mydomain' then I |
60 |
> can CNAME that to zeus.mydomain via DNS, or I can just set |
61 |
> mail.mydomain to the ip address of the second interface. Result - I |
62 |
> can redirect my mail to mail.mydomain and it can go to whatever |
63 |
> computer I desire, whether or not it has different names. 'zeus' is |
64 |
> still listening under that name for other requests. If i use 'zeus' |
65 |
> for heavy filesharing, I can still get good access over a non-saturated |
66 |
> ethernet device on 'mail'. |
67 |
|
68 |
Well, this is something else - the computer knows itself as zeus and has |
69 |
"nicknames". However, if I got what the question was about - to be name1 |
70 |
for one card and name2 for the second - and do not appear as name2 on |
71 |
the first at all. |
72 |
|
73 |
IMO machine should have the same "base" name to any domain it shows in - |
74 |
the one that it shows in bash command prompt. Then you can have |
75 |
additional names for the services and they can differ. |
76 |
|
77 |
But the name showed on the bash should probable be reachable (if |
78 |
possible) from any network it appears on. The situation shown here is |
79 |
probably odd (the names here are the only ones there, no additional ones |
80 |
or base ones). |
81 |
|
82 |
[ X ] C1 ---- C2 [ X ] C1 ---- C2 [ X ]. |
83 |
|
84 |
The [ X ] is a machine, ---- is a network and those C? are names of the |
85 |
machine on the net. Now, ping C1 on the middle machine. Should it ping |
86 |
itself on the right interface or look for the left computer? You should |
87 |
at last have something like: |
88 |
|
89 |
[ Name1 ] C1 ---- C2 [ Name2 ] C1 ---- C2 [ Name3 ] |
90 |
|
91 |
(even if Name2 could not be resolved by the DNS on the right network for |
92 |
example). |
93 |
|
94 |
And you can "nickname" Name2 as mail or ntp if it suits you. |
95 |
|
96 |
I hope I made myself clear and I apologize for the previous |
97 |
misunderstanding. |
98 |
|
99 |
Have a nice day |
100 |
|
101 |
-- |
102 |
Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined. |
103 |
-- Samuel Goldwyn |
104 |
|
105 |
Michal 'vorner' Vaner |
106 |
|
107 |
-- |
108 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |