[MLB-WIRELESS] Melbwirelses DNS and Domain Names

[Ben Holko]

> Why not have a two working domains for each node ala
<nodestuff>.<internal domain> and <nodestuff>.<external domain>.

that's not a bad idea, but it means when something needs changing, it has to
be changed in two locations....which kyboshes it IMHO



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au
[mailto:owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au]On Behalf Of Mark Dorset
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 4:28 PM
To: Craig Mead
Cc: Abe Orchard; Melbourne Wireless Group
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Melbwirelses DNS and Domain Names


Why not have a two working domains for each node ala
<nodestuff>.<internal domain> and <nodestuff>.<external domain>. Both
can refer to the same non-routable IP address and then members can pick
whether they want to point their DNS to the internet DNS and use domains
like dch.i.like.long.domains.a.lot.melbourne.wireless.org.au or the
internal DNS server and use domains like dch.wl...

The only potential issue I can see is if people start doing absolute URL
links rather than relative ones on websites, etc. If we made it an
acceptable standard to have everyone add either an internal or internal
search domain depending on their DNS choice, then people could do links
on pages like "http://<node host>/directory/index.html" and let the
search domain complete the rest...

At the end of the day though, I'm not too fussed... There's always
workarounds for other people's long DNS naming conventions...


Craig Mead wrote:
>>Umm.. now I am no expert here but can't you just run two domain name
>>systems?  :) that would be fun.. I understand some competing companies
>
> tried
>
>>it to sell <dot>yourcompanynamehere domains a while ago.. they slotted
>>software into Kazza to get people to be able to resolve the names but
>
> people
>
>>seemed to think it was spyware.
>>
>>Abe
>
>
> By two domain systems you mean one internal (MW) and one external
> (internet)?
>
> According to the RFC on how DNS should work, this will not work.
>
> The RFC basically says if I have a list of DNS servers and the first DNS
> server returns unknown, the process will halt, not calling upon the
> alternatives in the DNS server list. The only time it should go to
> secondary/tertiary servers is when the servers don't respond at all.
>
> Given this however, after testing it on Windows and RedHat systems, they
> don't actually comply with the RFC. If the address was unknown on the
first
> server (ISP's) the name would resolve from my DNS server (hosting the
> wireless records). However knowingly planning a network which breaks RFC
so
> if RedHat/M$ pull their asses into gear and decide to comply with these
> "standards" as well as the chance that some of the other OS's out there
may
> well comply with the RFC as well, this really isn't an option
>
>
> To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
> with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
>
>


To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message




To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message