Bulent Murtezaoglu writes: > Hmm, the 127.0.0.1 way outlined by another lister is much better, no > need for listening on the public IP.
Sure, if you don't want a public dns server (and don't need a cache in other hosts accessing it, as in your example) that would be the recommended setup. I use a variation of it in my dialup machine (forwarding only dnscache on 127.0.0.1, tinydns on 127.53.0.2). > Oh sure, I was just responding to the "who'd need such a thing" > question, not to the "how would one do this if one cannot run both > kinds of servers on one interface" one. It turns out you weren't > asking the question I thought you were! What I was trying to say (but expressing myself badly) is that the software can be configured in a very flexible way, and that the functionality separation in two programs (which is a good idea) shouldn't be a problem. Regards, -- Adriano -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
