Setting up a Root name server

[Michael Voight]

chris wrote:
> > 
> Right, the root files are loaded via ftp and bind loads the zones as a
> master, not a slave. If I was to "slave" off of a root server, then I
> would be set up as a secondary and bind would have the lovely task of
> named-xfering a gig or so of zone data.
>

This still makes you a slave, just not an automatic one. 
This means you must get the updated zone from the source manually.
As far as the bind software goes, you aren't a slave, but IRL, you are.


> Originally I posted a message here to find out some more information on
> how to set up a root nameserver while in the process of setting it up. You
> then decided to not answer my question, but to question my question, the
> typical action of someone that doesn't know what they are talking about
> but loves to argue. I thought this was a bind discussion group, not a
> forum for bind related arguments.

It is a discussion group. Discussion doesn't imply that we agree or that
we will NOT try to stop someone from doing something wrong. The answer
to a question is not always the answer. Sometimes it is someone asking
"Why"?
These people may disagree with you, but they are trying to help.

If becoming a root server was a viable answer to network connectivity
issues, then more companies would be doing it. You need to ask yourself,
why aren't they do it? You apparently don't care. Your test of root
servers with nslookup was possibly flawed. Was nslookup your sole way of
testing this problem?? Do you have sniffer traces? 


> 
> I never said there was a problem, I came in to the project with the
> intention of making a more optimal network. As I've said over and over
> again.

And you have been told that becoming your own root server will result in
no noticeable improvement in overall network response time.

> 
> Personally, I have heard of no one that has done this. I would like to try
> it out. I don't have all the information I need to make it happen. So I
> asked questions.

What information. You get the zone file, you tell named.conf that you
are primary for "."

 If you don't like to read about people asking questions,
> try unsubscribing from this list / news group.
> 

If you don't like receiving negative answers, then you are also welcome.
This is a discussion group, not just a how-to group.

> 5 years ago I would have been laughed at for running a caching nameserver
> on my own lan.
> 

By who? I have never seen a DNS book that said not to have a caching
nameserver. In fact, the preferred designed is clients > caching servers
> secondaries > primary. You want to have a single primary for root. Recommendations are for a minimum of 2.
 
> Perhaps if you had spent more time talking about the problem and not
> trying to cut it to shreds we could have saved everyone a lot of time and
> bandwidth.

One key element is missing here. Your ability to understand that these
people are trying to help you.

Michael