On 08/20/03(18:49) you Olaf =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=FCschel?= <firstname.lastname@example.org>
wrote in <_A2378@delegate-en.ML_>
|Zone transfers (AXFR's) become neccessary when you host your DNS
|master servers behind a Delegate proxy - which I intended to do.
|I ended up with doubling each proxy with a tcprelay for DNS.
|That worked (also I retreated from this configuration for other
|reasons inherent in the DNS protocol which ist *not* proxy
Could you show me the reason why tcprelay is not good for AXFR relay?
I personally have not encountered a situation where DNS over TCP is
necessary. It is the reason why it has not been implemented.
|Second I would appreciate if Delegate could do name resolution by
|itself, so it could act as an outbound proxy without the help of
|another resolver. This would do away with the need of a separate
|bind instance (or alike) on the proxy or a separate host on the outside
|(or you would have to rely on you ISP dns ...).
DNS-DeleGate can reads hosts file (or NIS hosts) to provide the data
to DNS clients. You can specify any hosts file other than /etc/hosts
as RESOLV="file:/path/of/hosts". Not only A record, also it can serve
MX record by defining "-MX.hostname xx.xx.xx.xx" in hosts file.
So far, the policy of DNS-DeleGate is to be as simple as possible in
its implementation and configuration, while satisfying minimum
functionality for common usage.
I'm rather conservative about what should be extended to it because,
of course, there are complete implementations of DNS server in the
world if complete solution is necessary.
@ @ Yutaka Sato <email@example.com> http://www.delegate.org/y.sato/
( - ) National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
_< >_ 1-1-4 Umezono, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8568 Japan
Do the more with the less -- B. Fuller