RE: is your host or dhcp server sending dns dynamic updates for rfc1918?

["Eric Germann" <ekgermann () CCTEC COM>]

If people set up their Win2K networks right, it wouldn't be a problem.
Simply install the MS DNS server, point their clients at that, then all the
updates go there.  And if that DNS server has connectivity to the 'Net at
large, it will resolve all their other requests too by chasing the chain
from the root down.

Best of both worlds, or at least the best you can do in the situation ...


==========================================================================
  Eric Germann                                        CCTec
  ekgermann () cctec com                                 Van Wert OH 45801
  http://www.cctec.com                                Ph:  419 968 2640
                                                      Fax: 603 825 5893

"The fact that there are actually ways of knowing and characterizing the
extent of one’s ignorance, while still remaining ignorant, may ultimately be
more interesting and useful to people than Yarkovsky"

  -- Jon Giorgini of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
> Adrian Chadd
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 2:35 AM
> To: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: is your host or dhcp server sending dns dynamic updates for
> rfc1918?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2002, Martin J. Levy wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > > now as to who's responsible, ...
> >
> > I hate to say it, but "Microsoft".  This is the default for w2k
> and the like.  The interesting thing is that it's got a very
> short timer for retries and hence why your logs are so big.  I
> found this...
> >  http://www.isc.org/ml-archives/bind-users/2001/02/msg01806.html
> >
> >  http://www.domainregistry.ie/tech/dynamic-dns.html
>
> . time for a BCP, perhaps?
>
> > I also thought that w2k and the like should not do a dynamic
> dns update if it's on private IP space, but that's not a valid
> test either, as the "enterprise" may well only exist in private
> IP space.  (Yes... they should run their own zone for the reverse dns).
>
> What _should_ happen IMHO is that this becomes an option thats off
> by default, rather than on by default. The amount of time saved by admins
> having this turned on is probably negated by the load placed on
> bind servers all over the planet - perhaps someone should send M$ an
> invoice.. :P
>
>
>
>
> Adrian
>
> --
> Adrian Chadd                  "For a sucessful technology, reality must
> <adrian () creative net au>     take precedence over public relations,
>                                   for nature cannot be fooled" - Feynmann

Attachment: Eric Germann.vcf
Description: