Jeff Schreiber wrote:
> "Jens B. Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >I believe it makes a lot more sense to find out *what* names are being looked
> >up and *why* and solve the real problem rather than shoehorn in some kludge.
>
> I knew there was something I was forgetting to mention!
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 1998 at 03:28:21PM -0500, Jens B. Jorgensen wrote:
> > Stephen J. Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:17:45AM -0500, Jens B. Jorgensen wrote:
> > > > Hack is the word alright. My opinion is that you're attacking this
> > > > problem the
"Jens B. Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I believe it makes a lot more sense to find out *what* names are being looked
>up and *why* and solve the real problem rather than shoehorn in some kludge.
I knew there was something I was forgetting to mention!
>As I said, logically you only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 1998 at 03:28:21PM -0500, Jens B. Jorgensen wrote:
> > Stephen J. Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:17:45AM -0500, Jens B. Jorgensen wrote:
> > > > Hack is the word alright. My opinion is that you're attacking this
> > > > problem the
On Thu, Jul 16, 1998 at 03:28:21PM -0500, Jens B. Jorgensen wrote:
> Stephen J. Carpenter wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:17:45AM -0500, Jens B. Jorgensen wrote:
> > > Hack is the word alright. My opinion is that you're attacking this
> > > problem the wrong
> > > way though. Now let me m
"Jens B. Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>You don't *need* two different files. I don't understand why you do. Just
>go ahead and make your named the authoritative name server for carpanet.
>Forward other requests outside. This should work just fine. Why is it you
>think you need two conf
Stephen J. Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:17:45AM -0500, Jens B. Jorgensen wrote:
> > Hack is the word alright. My opinion is that you're attacking this problem
> > the wrong
> > way though. Now let me make sure I've got it right. When your connection is
> > down
> > (diald? pon?
On Thu, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:55:54AM -0400, Jeff Schreiber wrote:
> "Stephen J. Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >then setup one of them so that it has no knowledge of any root servers and
> >is the primary nameserver for the network...and list no other
> >outside adresses or nameservers anyw
On Thu, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:17:45AM -0500, Jens B. Jorgensen wrote:
> Hack is the word alright. My opinion is that you're attacking this problem
> the wrong
> way though. Now let me make sure I've got it right. When your connection is
> down
> (diald? pon? xisp? ???) programs are trying to make DN
Hack is the word alright. My opinion is that you're attacking this problem the
wrong
way though. Now let me make sure I've got it right. When your connection is down
(diald? pon? xisp? ???) programs are trying to make DNS lookups and these
programs
hang for a long time waiting for a DNS response
"Stephen J. Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>then setup one of them so that it has no knowledge of any root servers and
>is the primary nameserver for the network...and list no other
>outside adresses or nameservers anywhere.
I'm not sure I am completely understanding the issue that you
I have been trying to solve some issues for myself by making my
own version of a "dynamic IP hack". I think its a great idea but
implimenting it is proving tough.
The reason is this: I have 127.0.0.1 setup as my main name server.
whenever my ppp connection is not up, any program which ends up ca
12 matches
Mail list logo
