Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 16:40:59 +0900,
John Summerfield <debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So far as I can tell, and Ive been using RHL and its successors since
RHL 3.0.3, "caching nameserver" is a term invented by RH.
I don't think so.
You mightn't, but I did a little googling.
8000 hits on "caching nameserver."
Down to 12,400 when I excluded rpm (which is certainly a Red Hat
invention), "Red Hat" Redhat, Fedora, and 1850 when I added in debian,
83 when I used slackware instead of debian.
Not proof maybe, but solid evidence I think.
Whatever, it describes a name server that is authoritative for no zones.
It does iterative lookups rather than publish information. Typically it
is a good idea to separate dns caches from dns publishers.
Why?
Generally speaking, every DNS caches. _My_ DSNs are responsible for some
domains such as office.lan, demo.roon and so on, may refer to other
nameservers I maintain and either refer to my IAP's DNS for public
If a server is just a publisher it doesn't need to cache data data from
other domains (than it is authoritative for).
Whether one uses it that way depends in large measure on the size of the
owning organisation. I suggest there are more small organisations than
large ones.
Anyone who's using AD on Windows is running an authoritative DNS, and
since client software, on Windows, Linux or anything else, only knows to
use one DNS: while it might know of more than one, the rule is to use
the first one that replies, and to only ask the next when one doesn't
respond. Consequently, an AD DNS[1] will be authoritative for the
domain, but caching the rest of the world.
[1] It is possible to configure a Windows domain to use a different DNS,
but I don't think that is usual or would give better reliability.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
