fowarding vs named.ca

[Barry Margolin]

In article <dan5k9$1grn$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
 Jim Popovitch <jimpop at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 00:06 +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > At 4:37 PM -0400 2005-07-08, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > 
> > >  Can I have 2 caching bind instances on the same host, one using
> > >  forwarders (bound to 127.0.0.1) and the second using roots (bound to
> > >  loop 127.0.0.2).  Then just set up 127.0.0.1 and .2 in /etc/resolv.conf.
> > 
> > 	Why do you want forwarders at all?  They almost always complicate 
> > the setup, and slow things down, and make nameserver failure a far 
> > more difficult task to deal with.
> >
> > 	Try to find a way to eliminate the forwarders completely.
> > 
> 
> The reason for using the forwarders is so that I don't have this one
> sole box querying the root servers all the time.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I
> always thought it best to hit an upstream cache rather than going all
> the way to the top.  It certainly would be much simpler for me to
> eliminate the local cache (what the forwarders hit).

But you don't go all the way to the top all the time.  Your box will 
have a cache of its own, so it will only have to go to the top when you 
query it for something where none of the components are in the cache.  
E.g. for .com names, you'll almost never have to go further than the 
GTLD servers, since the COM NS records will usually be in the cache.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***