Re: [cobalt-users] Re: RAQ3 as primary AND secondary DNS

[Brent Sims <brent@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 27 May 2000, BlackSun so wrote:

} Yes, but for those that own/lease a single RaQ that hosts all of
} their websites, it's academic since if this server goes down you
} cease to exist. Having secondary DNS on a separate server won't
} remedy this scenario in the least.

	Regardless of the academic aspect of the discussion, the
Domain Name System requires that multiple servers exist for every
delegated host (http://www.dns.net/dnsrd/rfc/rfc2182.html) and I
make no excuse for suggesting that the best way may very well be the
required way.

} That's very admirable, but again, if the customer only has a single
} RaQ, and less than a hundred clients, secondary DNS is a mute point.

	The point is not mute. Section 3.3 of RFC 2182 explains why 
this argument is "fallacious".


} Again, this is an ideal setup and I commend you - but you probably
} have more than one server and hundreds (or thousands) or clients.
} We are talking about a single RaQ3 here...

	Regardless of the size of the load our name servers handle,
it all started with one domain, a 10 year old Unisys with an 8mhz
processor and an 80meg drive which I rescued from the local 
dump. Today, just a few years later, we finalized an agreement
which will result in a distributed redundant network of name servers
and hosts with which we fully intend to make our presence felt.

	Stuff happens... excuse me for suggesting that the person
who posted the question prepare for the best instead of positioning
their self to be another also ran.

	Worse yet, perhaps, as I recall, I offered to provide
secondary name server service at no charge and I also recommended
someone else who I strongly suspect would happily do the very same
thing. What is it about our willingness to try and help other's do
things the right way that bothers you?

	Peace be with you,
	
	Brent
	
	Brent Sims
	WebOkay Internet Services
	http://www.WebOkay.net
	Brent@xxxxxxxxxxx
	(719) 595-1427 (Voice/Fax)