Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 05 Dec 1998 15:59:54 -0500
From:      "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG>
To:        alk@pobox.com
Cc:        net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: resolver behaviour 
Message-ID:  <36309.912891594@gjp.erols.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 05 Dec 1998 14:48:34 CST." <13929.39477.406338.806610@avalon.east> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tony Kimball wrote in message ID
<13929.39477.406338.806610@avalon.east>:
> 
> IMO, current resolver behaviour is not appropriate.
> 
> I would like the resolver to try all the nameservers at once, and
> return any positive lookup response.

Can you say `packet storm'? I knew you could ... All our servers here run 
local nameservers, and only have secondary nameserver entries listed for the 
rare occasions named core dumps. I don't want to go increasing the ammount of 
UDP traffic on to my backup nameservers by a factor of 50 (if not more). Even 
switched fastether can only take so much.

Seems your problem is not the resolver, but your nameserver setup. My guess is 
problems arise from doing lookups on `internal' addresses on `external' 
nameservers? The correct solution then is to run a nameserver on the firewall, 
and force it to bind only to 127.0.0.1. You use that in your resolv.conf, and 
teach it enough about the topology to answer properly.

Gary
--
Gary Palmer                                          FreeBSD Core Team Member
FreeBSD: Turning PC's into workstations. See http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/ for info



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?36309.912891594>