Hi all

I have opened an account on dyndns.org for using Dynamic DNS. First of all,
I have to say that I'm a newbie so maybe I will tell incorrect things.
Well, one of the thing which is not very clear to me is the hostname to use
on the server. On dynds.org I registered bluto.dyndns.org. This is my doubt:
what hostname must I set? Just "bluto"? Or "bluto.dyndns.org"? Or it's just
my choice?

Another thing. Does it make sense to set up a dns server for the LAN? And in
this case, the zone files should be on the bluto.dyndns.org zone? And again,
client pcs (two windows and another Linux) should have dyndns.org,
bluto.dyndns.org or it does not matter?

Hope someone can help me

Gianluca

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:29:44 +0200, Jollyluke wrote:

> I have opened an account on dyndns.org for using Dynamic DNS. First of all
,
> I have to say that I'm a newbie so maybe I will tell incorrect things.
> Well, one of the thing which is not very clear to me is the hostname to us
e
> on the server. On dynds.org I registered bluto.dyndns.org. This is my doub
t:
> what hostname must I set? Just "bluto"? Or "bluto.dyndns.org"? Or it's jus
t
> my choice?

Dyndns doesn't care what the hostname or domain of your local LAN is. You
can set both to whatever you like.

You can set your machine to seahag.jeepjeep.com and dyndns will still
point internet machines to your address using bluto.dyndns.org.

The only issues you should run into is the registered name in any ssl
certificates you might use, because ssl reports the remotely resolved name
to the client. So, if you build your certificates with seahag.jeepjeep.com
and the client is going to bluto.dyndns.org to get to your machine the
client will report that the names don't match.

> Another thing. Does it make sense to set up a dns server for the LAN?
> And in this case, the zone files should be on the bluto.dyndns.org zone?
> And again, client pcs (two windows and another Linux) should have
> dyndns.org, bluto.dyndns.org or it does not matter?

That depends on how big your LAN is and how much you want to set up bind.
If you're only talking about a few machines it would probably be easier to
put your local machines in your host files rather than setting up a DNS
server.


--
"Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed."
Benjamin Franklin (I didn't know he was a Buddhist)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Ivan Marsh wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:29:44 +0200, Jollyluke wrote:
> If you're only talking about a few machines it would probably be easier to
> put your local machines in your host files rather than setting up a DNS
> server.
>
>

Bind is one of the easiest things I ever set up on my Linux server -
just follow the HOWTO 

Also, considerable improvements in resolution times.

Steve

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:23:48 +0100, Steve Welsh wrote:

> Ivan Marsh wrote: 
>
> Bind is one of the easiest things I ever set up on my Linux server -
> just follow the HOWTO 

True... it is quite easy to set up... but host files are easier.

> Also, considerable improvements in resolution times.

It's impossible for a DNS server to resolve faster than host files. Your
machine always checks the host files before it does a DNS lookup.

--
"Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed."
Benjamin Franklin (I didn't know he was a Buddhist)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:23:48 +0100, Steve Welsh wrote: 
>
> True... it is quite easy to set up... but host files are easier.
> 
>
> It's impossible for a DNS server to resolve faster than host files. Your
> machine always checks the host files before it does a DNS lookup.

You're assuming that the host exists in the host file.  If not, then a
local DNS server lookup will very likely be faster than an external query.

Follow ups set to a.o.l.

--
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]