[MLB-WIRELESS] Melbwirelses DNS and Domain Names

[Mark Dorset]

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