Small home network...

[Kevin Darcy]

Offhand, the only thing I see _wrong_ with it, is that you only have one
NS listed for the zone. You should have 2 or more.

If we want to talk about style preferences, however, I'd probably
replace the second and third "@"'s with white space, for readability,
and move the "bloom-bay.com." A record above "localhost" and replace its
leftmost field with whitespace as well. I prefer to have all of the
records which refer directly to the zone at the top of the file.

I'd probably also just have one name for the address you're currently
mapping as "bozo", "mail" and "ns1", and alias all of the other
associated names to it. That way, it simplies reverse lookups and if the
address changes, I'd only need to change it in one place. On the other
hand, if you expect to be splitting off the nameserver and/or mail
functions to separate machines anytime soon, then maybe it makes more
sense to have different names.

I assume your DNS provider takes care of the $TTL directive, or that its
software doesn't require one. Otherwise, you'll need to add that to the
top of the zone file as well.

subdudedotcom at my-deja.com wrote:

> Hi:
>
> I have a small home network (up to 10 CPU's) that
> is connected to the Internet through a Linux
> gateway-server-masquerade box and an ADSL modem.
> I have four registered domains and use either
> realdns.com or granitecanyon.com to do my DNS to
> my single IP address.
>
> I run named on the masquerade box to cache DNS
> queries and serve a 192.168.0.x home network.
> Here is my SOA and RRs for my home network (called
> bloom-bay.com) which is registered (names and IP
> address changed).
>
> @                 IN      SOA    bloom-bay.com.
> root.bloom-bay.com.  (
>                          111099       ; Serial
>                              8H       ; Refresh
>                              2H       ; Retry
>                              1W       ; Expire
>                              1D       ; Minimum
>                              )
>
> @                 IN      NS     ns1.bloom-
> bay.com.
> @                 IN      MX     5  mail
>
> localhost         IN      A      127.0.0.1
> bloom-bay.com.    IN      A      210.53.21.106
>
> bozo              IN      A      192.168.0.1
> mail              IN      A      192.168.0.1
> ns1               IN      A      192.168.0.1
>
> ftp               IN      CNAME  bloom-bay.com.
> www               IN      CNAME  bloom-bay.com.
> pop               IN      CNAME  bloom-bay.com.
> smtp              IN      CNAME  bozo
> news              IN      CNAME  bozo
> server            IN      CNAME  blond
>
> bango             IN      A      192.168.0.2
> bingo             IN      A      192.168.0.3
> bungo             IN      A      192.168.0.4
> bongo             IN      A      192.168.0.5
> bonzo             IN      A      192.168.0.6
> bogus             IN      A      192.168.0.7
> bosco             IN      A      192.168.0.8
> bluto             IN      A      192.168.0.9
> broke             IN      A      192.168.0.10
> bondo             IN      A      192.168.0.11
> blond             IN      A      192.168.0.12
> binky             IN      A      192.168.0.13
> baric             IN      A      192.168.0.14
> bizare            IN      A      192.168.0.15
> buster            IN      A      192.168.0.16
> bezerk            IN      A      192.168.0.17
> bovine            IN      A      192.168.0.18
> bitter            IN      A      192.168.0.19
> butter            IN      A      192.168.0.20
> bother            IN      A      192.168.0.21
> print             IN      A      192.168.0.22
> pm-11             IN      A      192.168.0.23
> sun               IN      A      192.168.0.24
> guest             IN      A      192.168.0.51
>
> bozo.bloom-bay.com is the Linux masquerade
> gateway machine that hosts my
> caching DNS server.
>
> As you can see, I have assigned the bloom-bay.com
> network my Internet IP
> address "210.53.21.106". I have also assigned
> bozo.bloom-bay.com the IP
> address "192.168.0.1" for internal use - they are
> both the same machine.
>
> Is this the correct way to assign multiple
> addresses to the same box?

In DNS terms, they're not "the same box"; just two arbitrary
name-to-address mappings which happen to be contained in the same zone.


- Kevin