named.conf "option forwarder" vs. resolv.conf "nameserver"?

[Joseph S D Yao]

> Can someone explain to this DNS/BIND newbie the functional distinction 
> between the "options forwarder" in named.conf and the "nameserver" in 
> resolv.conf?
> 
> To me, they sound like they act identically: if a name cannot be resolved 
> locally, the specified remote host is called upon to do the resolution.

You have it pretty much right, with this one distinction.

The contents of "named.conf" are used by 'named', and IGNORED by
everything else.

The contents of "resolv.conf" are used by everything else, but are not
[as far as I can tell] used by 'named' to respond to queries.

> I currently have my RedHat v6.0 system (/w BIND v8.2) configured with the
> addresses of 2 nameservers in /etc/named.conf.  If a name can't be resolved
> from my local cache, the request for resolution is forwarded to either the
> primary or secondary nameserver of my ISP, both listed in /etc/resolv.conf.
> I'm wondering, though, if there would be any advantage in having the
> addresses of those nameservers in "options forward" statements.  Would
> there?

If they aren't in forwarders{} clauses in the options{} statement, then
just exactly where in /etc/named.conf are the addresses of these two
name servers?

If they aren't there, and the above is how you want your name server to
act, then you had better put them there.

--
Joe Yao				jsdy at cospo.osis.gov - Joseph S. D. Yao
COSPO/OSIS Computer Support					EMT-B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is not an official statement of COSPO policies.