From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 17 19:47:07 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74FE937B40E for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 19:47:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc12.attbi.com (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C16043FAF for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 19:47:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (be-well.no-ip.com[24.147.188.198]) by attbi.com (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <20030618024703012009aaape>; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 02:47:03 +0000 Received: from be-well.ilk.org (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.147.188.198] (may be forged)) by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h5I2l21V003093; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 22:47:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com) Received: (from lowell@localhost) by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id h5I2l2mq003089; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 22:47:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: be-well.ilk.org: lowell set sender to freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org using -f Sender: lowell@be-well.no-ip.com To: Alfonso Romero References: <00c101c3353c$4ecbe100$0100a8c0@ibacsoft.dynu.com> <87of0wjfc5.fsf@pooh.honeypot.net> <00da01c33542$bc6a42a0$0100a8c0@ibacsoft.dynu.com> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 17 Jun 2003 22:47:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <00da01c33542$bc6a42a0$0100a8c0@ibacsoft.dynu.com> Message-ID: <44d6hchzkq.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Lines: 7 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: freebsd-questions Subject: Re: Two DNS servers with one IP address X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 02:47:07 -0000 Alfonso Romero writes: > Well, I wondered if it could be possible to have a primary and a secondary > nameserver with only one public IP address, sort of like virtual domains on > apache... Not only isn't it possible in general, it wouldn't serve any purpose.