win2k dropping local DNS server from server list if server goes down?

[Kevin Darcy]

Jean-Christian Imbeault wrote:

> >As much as I'd like to confirm Yet Another Bug in Win2K, I don't think this
> >can
> >really be called a "bug" since the order in which stub resolvers use
> >nameservers is not defined by any standard, AFAIK.
>
> I agree that the order might not be defined by any standard. I guess it was
> just very misleading for win2k to actually write on the DNS entry screen
> "DNS server addresses, in order of use". It was the "in order of use" that
> got me thinking that this was an ordered list with entries at the top being
> used first . . .

Well, basically that just boils down to a GUI issue then...

> >On the other hand, you seem to have a fundamental problem with your
> >DNS architecture -- the *same* answers should be available from
> >*all* nameservers configured in any given stub resolver. Otherwise >you're
> >bound to get inconsistent results sooner or later.
>
> Sorry about this. I forgot to mention that my local DNS server only resolves
> local names and forwards everything else to the ISP. The names it resolves
> are for an internal LAN, hence aren't registered anywhere.

Then you shouldn't mix the two types of servers in the same stub resolver
configuration. If you want redundancy, you should provide at least 2 local
DNS servers.


- Kevin