Hello,
I want to configure a DNS server with the help of https://ubuntu.com/server/docs/servi...me-service-dns article.
I have some questions:

1- In @ IN A 192.168.1.10, is 192.168.1.10 the IP address of the server that wants to be DNS's server?

2- Should the secondary server be configured on another (physical or virtual) server? If yes, then I have to install BIND9 on another server and configure it. Am I right?

3- In zone "1.168.192.in-addr.arpa", why is the IP address reversed? If I change 1.168.192 to 192.168.1, will there be a problem?


Thank you.

1. "@" stands for the domain name; in the sample file it is example.com. It makes the file more generic to use @ than to repeat the name everywhere. There is another line for ns, which is the nameserver.

2. It doesn't make sense to configure a secondary on the same system, since if the primary fails, the secondary fails too.

3. That's how you do reverse lookup, starting with the LSB. It would not work the other way 'round. It's for the same reason that URLs don't go com.google.mail.

1 members found this post helpful.

Hello,
Thank you so much for your reply.
Is 192.168.1.10 the IP address of the server that wants to be DNS's server?

This line:
says that the nameserver for the domain example.com is ns.example.com.

This line:
says that the IPV4 address of ns.example.com is 192.168.1.10.

This line:
says that the IPV4 address of example.com is also 192.168.1.10.

2 members found this post helpful.

Hello,
Thank you so much for your great help.
As a final question, if the DNS server has access to the Internet, then if the IP address of the DNS server is entered in the client's DNS settings, does the client have access to the Internet?

My bad. Didn't realize you were a troll.

No. Not if the client doesn’t have ‘net access otherwise.

What are you actually trying to accomplish? Why do you need/want to set up a name server?

I used to maintain a name server for the domains I was hosting n the same system, but realized several problems with that.
First, as has been stated, having the name server on the same box as the domain hosting services results in a single point of failure.
Also, it’s recommended (required?) that a domain name have at least two authoritative name servers (three is better) on different subnets. I only had IP addresses on one public subnet, so I wasn’t meeting that recommendation/requirement.
So I stopped trying to run my own server and began using the Domain Name Server provided by the domain registrar.
And, I was already using the ISPs name server for DNS resolution, because my name server only contained zones for the domains I was hosting.
I still had to learn what entries were needed for the domains I host, and how to accomplish that in the registrar’s system, but I no longer had to maintain the actual name server.

1 members found this post helpful.

Hello,
Thank you so much for your reply.
I want DNS for an internal network. Something similar to the Windows domain. Clients become members of your domain.

Hello,
No, I'm not.

Don't use dns - it doesn't apply. Use /etc/hosts.

1 members found this post helpful.

Hello,
Thank you so much for your reply.
Can you explain more?

I'll try.

Back in the 1970s there was no dns. Every machine had the "entire internet" in /etc/hosts. I got an archive of an Industrial system from 1974 and /etc/hosts was the biggest file at 200k. cc was about 10k, and everything was miniscule by comparison.

Today we have /etc/host.conf, with the line That means when looking for a 'name to ip' lookup, check /etc/hosts first, then go to bind(DNS). The internet is on dns. Your local network doesn't have publicly available IPs, does it? So put them in /etc/hosts, and mark the problem solved

1 members found this post helpful.

I have set up a DNS server for my local network using DNSMASQ. Bind is overkill for local use, and far harder to manage.

(But if you want to use it, managing it via WEBMIN is a treat!)

2 members found this post helpful.

Agreed - Bind is overkill. I liked DJB's play on it.
But /etc/hosts never caught up, did it? And that's what I was trying to explain.