Re: [cobalt-users] Re: How to use .include file to add secondary dns

[josh <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 12:39:17AM -0400, Steve Werby wrote:
> "josh" <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Josh,
> > >
> > > Having just one primary and one secondary nameserver is perfectly
> fine --
> >
> > No it's not. See the post I sent just before this one.
> 
> Josh, it really depends on the domain and how it's being used.  You
> referenced RFC 2182 which states that 2 nameservers are required, but it may

Let me rephrase that, I'm not saying the web interface should force
anyone to use 2 (or more) secondaries. I am saying, even if RaQ XTRs
are purchased exclusively by idiots, those idiots should still be the
ones to decide how many secondaries they need; that I should have a
box where I can pub multiple entries, not just a single blank to fill
in. I very strongly believe that a web interface should be in
agreement with every RFC out there. They should never force a user to
violate accepted good practice as specified by the IETF. I know there
are people working for Sun who read RFCs; they might even have a few
who write them. If the ability to add multiple secondaries was lost
when they went from RaQ4s to XTRs, it is a major BUG and should be
fixed as rapidly as possible. I would report it as such, if I knew a
mechanism to do so! The web interface not allowing two secondaries, or
multiple NS records, to be added to the SOA record is very very bad.

I'm sure that, as serverappliances, many RaQs are sitting at ISPs
where another machine is really providing DNS and the RaQ is running a
caching name server or even not running a name server at all and just
pointing it to the real namsever on the network is sufficient. 

I was expecting to be RTFM'ed as to how to simply add multiple
secondaries. Apparently it was easy to do with the earlier RaQ
interfaces. If Sun had advertised the XTR, as no longer providing the
option of complying with best practice as suggested in the RFCs, I
wouldn't have bought one. To remove the capablity when it previously
existed strikes me as very very odd and frankly I still can't imagine
it is not there. Most people just use one-email address, but they
didn't remove the option to add an alias in the web interface. I just
want to add one more NS record with the webface.

> unreachable at the same time is pretty low.  Unfortunately, a large
> percentage of RaQ admins either have a secondary nameserver listed which is

You design with the assumption that people have some idea of what they
are doing. Almost every car on the road is capable of being driven
into a tree. That is not a design flaw. That some RaQ admins can't set
up a secondary DNS correctly has no bearing on the number of
secondaries that constitute standard good practice. 

-- 
Josh Kuperman                       
josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx