| 1 |
Preston Hagar <prestonh <at> gmail.com> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Another option is http://freedns.afraid.orgI have used them for several years |
| 4 |
and had no problems. They are free.Preston |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
>> James <wireless <at> tampabay.rr.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> Hello,I'm looking for a good DNS registrar... |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Hello Preston et al, |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Your chosen service (afraid.org) combined with the others: |
| 12 |
(zoneedit && everydns) look interesting. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
However, what I'm looking for is a registrar like: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
http://www.goaustraliadomains.com/ |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
that is inexpensive (8.95/yr) and will point (100%) authority |
| 19 |
to my primary name server, at my static IP address. |
| 20 |
What I would like is a server that provides |
| 21 |
secondary service(resolution) while allowing me to run |
| 22 |
the primary server on my single static IP. Often folks exchange |
| 23 |
secondary services, agreeing to security semantics that |
| 24 |
preclude nefarious activities such as spamming, dos, etc etc. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I understand in this day and age, folks have security concerns |
| 27 |
with that sort of arrangement(unless they agree on the security |
| 28 |
semantics) but it is preferred and allows me to run my own dns |
| 29 |
config files and maintain authority. Merely pointing resource |
| 30 |
records and such in a config file on a server that somebody else |
| 31 |
controls, is not really what I'm looking for. Maybe I'm being too |
| 32 |
idealistic here, but, this goes to the very heart of what I |
| 33 |
consider 'community'; community is a fundamental tenant of the |
| 34 |
Internet, methinks. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Surely this is not so difficult to find other like minded technical |
| 37 |
folks that share/provide secondary dns resolution for others? Surely |
| 38 |
we there is a wiki or one can be developed where folks follow to provide |
| 39 |
secure secondary dns services for one another? If an unfair 'bandwidth' |
| 40 |
arrangement become apparent, I believe we have the necessary (QOS) |
| 41 |
technology (iptables/netfilter) to limit the bandwidth consumed by a |
| 42 |
secondary name service one provides for another. If the more technical |
| 43 |
folks to not share such solutions with the youth of the internet, |
| 44 |
folks will grow up thinking that haveing your own dns means |
| 45 |
somebody else points resource records to your server, and precludes |
| 46 |
the masses from experiencing the power of running their own |
| 47 |
dns services. Sure the root authority is still needed, but |
| 48 |
robust, multifaceted dns services are a quinessential tool |
| 49 |
for the future of the internet. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
It's been a few years since I've set up primary and secondary |
| 52 |
DNS services, but, surely the rfc's (1033 -1035) are still followed? |
| 53 |
Most of the newer(proposed) rfc's related to DNS do not look appealing |
| 54 |
to me; but, I have not studied them in depth to certify that sort of |
| 55 |
conclusion. I wonder why the various 'dns services' offered either |
| 56 |
for free or for a fee, do not mention which rfc's they are in |
| 57 |
compliance with? |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Are there any readers of this list that still provide their own |
| 60 |
primary/secondary dns services? Or offer secondary services to |
| 61 |
others for a fee or free? |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
I'm either a dinosaur or I have missed something fundamental on |
| 64 |
the evolution of DNS? |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
confused, |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
James |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
-- |
| 72 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives