| 1 |
On 8/17/2011 2:08 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed 17 August 2011 13:56:10 Grant did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
>> I currently use a free service to host the DNS records for my |
| 4 |
>> website, but I'm thinking of running a DNS server on the same |
| 5 |
>> machine that runs my website instead. Would that be fairly trivial |
| 6 |
>> to set up and maintain? If so, which package should I use? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The first question is Why? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> There's no real benefit, it's a huge amount of work for little gain, |
| 11 |
> you carry the cost of increased traffic yourself, and if that host |
| 12 |
> goes blip, you not only lose access to the web server but to the |
| 13 |
> entire zone as well. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Technically there's no good reason why you can't co-host web and dns. |
| 16 |
> However, depending on your upper level domain and registrar, TWO dns |
| 17 |
> servers may be a requirement (this is the norm) and you propose only |
| 18 |
> one. Where's the second one going to be? Only one is a very bad idea |
| 19 |
> indeed. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Your last two questions reveal that this is not something you are |
| 22 |
> familiar with already, so I highly recommend you investigate |
| 23 |
> everything thoroughly and fully understand just what you are letting |
| 24 |
> yourself in for before deciding. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> If you simply don't like your current DNS provider, then finding a |
| 27 |
> different one you do like is quite simple. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Exactly what Alan said. It's not worth it and no registar will let you |
| 30 |
do it on one IP. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
kashani |
Archives