Re: DNS hosting
On 15 Jan 2003, 15:34:01, Matthew Daubenspeck wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 01:46:17PM -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> > I've got a DSL line with a single static IP address. I run the
> > primary DNS server on my home system and use ns[12].granitecanyon.com
> > for secondaries. Works like a charm. I can edit my zone files
> > directly, and they pick up the changes automatically.
>
> Can you host DNS servers on a Dynamic IP address?
Technically, yes, as long as your nameserver is not in your zone.
Zones are delegated to IP Names. If your domain is myzone.com, and your
nameserver is ns.myzone.com, the delegator must include the IP address
of ns.myzone.com in the .com zone file as a "glue" record in order for your
nameserver to be found. In this case, you would have to have a static IP.
If, on the otherhand, your nameserver is ns.hiszone.com, you can have myzone.com
delegated to ns.hiszone.com. Technically.
There will be some disconnects, though. If you setup your zones' TTLs to 300 (5 minutes),
as your addresses change, it will take 5 to 10 minutes for the old cached
responses to expire and new lookup requests to be fulfilled by queries back
to your NS.
Since it requires all records to have TTLs of 300, it's a Bad Thing. Too
much wasted traffic.
As a practical matter, I don't know of any registrars that will take a registration
without the IP addresses associated with the NS records, and most of them
include them, technically incorrectly if the "glue" record isn't needed,
in their zone files to keep traffic and repeated lookup requests to a minimum.
What I do instead is use cname records in the real zone that point to my
dyndns names. This works for everything except MX records, which can't point
to cnames. But I just use the dyndns name for the mail hosts in the MX record.
madmac
>
> If I use 'dig domain.com NS' it responds with domain names for name
> servers, not IP addresses. So if I am using a dynamic host name
> (dyndns.org) to point to my server, will requests follow the name or
> the IP?
>
> Reading over what I just wrote, it's pretty ugly, but I can't think of
> a better way to explain it...
>
Reply to: