| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Bob Young wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Obviously on a given system each NIC is usually connected to a different |
| 7 |
> domain, my question is, whether or not it is /legal/possible/okay to use |
| 8 |
> different *hostnames* on different NICs? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
DNS is for other computers to find yours. Yours doesn't give a squirt |
| 11 |
what other computers call it (web server software might, if it's using |
| 12 |
virtual hostnames, but a router or DNS server won't). Traffic either |
| 13 |
arrives and is dealt with, or it doesn't. It can be known by a |
| 14 |
bazillion names, if it makes sense to do so. I do this for my home |
| 15 |
router as well; each segment has its own network and DNS namespace, and |
| 16 |
thus knows the router by a different name. (*) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
You do not, however, want to publish DNS information for RFC 1918 |
| 19 |
addresses, as was pointed out. You should use "views" or a "split |
| 20 |
horizon" configuration, so that private names are only seen by private |
| 21 |
machines. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
(*) But use multiple A records, not CNAME. CNAME is almost never |
| 24 |
necessary, and gains you nothing except an extra query from every |
| 25 |
client. I've seen some cluster configurations in which CNAME offered an |
| 26 |
advantage, but it's rare. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
- -- |
| 29 |
David Talkington |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/004B8F8B.asc |
| 32 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iD8DBQFF76UA5FKhdwBLj4sRAgKSAJwPYLT5NkcsDvZj94H6yJSwHrcbSgCfWMYf |
| 36 |
9Ghfgopn1kESEYSH+tWqlX8= |
| 37 |
=ux8w |
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives