Primary and Secondary vs. two primaries "Guy" <gapcnet[ at ]newsgroup.nospam> 6/3/2007 10:46:31 AM I’m trying to harden our DNS servers. I currently have 2 servers (ns1 and ns2). Ns1 is primary and ns2 is secondary. Neither are AD integrated. I know that a secondary zone server only maintains a limited copy of the zones and queries the primary for other information. So if the primary goes down, it seems that the secondary is somewhat useless. Do you see any downsides to having ns1 & ns2 both being primary (other than having to manually two servers)?

Re: Primary and Secondary vs. two primaries "Anthony" <anthony.spam[ at ]spammedout.com> 6/3/2007 11:17:16 AM "Guy" <gapcnet[ at ]newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message news:eT1u6xcpHHA.3512[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... [Quoted Text] > I'm trying to harden our DNS servers. I currently have 2 servers (ns1 and > ns2). Ns1 is primary and ns2 is secondary. DNS servers aren't ordered. They are just servers that respond to queries. DNS client can have more than one DNS server to query, in a list, so from their point of view one might be considered "primary" but it isn't really. It is just first on a list. > I know that a secondary zone server only maintains a limited copy of the > zones The Primary Zone is the master, where changes are made. The Secondary is a full copy of the zone, but can't itself be updated. >and queries the primary for other information. DNS servers query whichever server they have set up with the Forwarder to forward queries to. There is not Primary or Secondary role involved. >So if the primary goes > down, it seems that the secondary is somewhat useless. Not at all. > Do you see any downsides to having ns1 & ns2 both being primary (other > than having to manually two servers)? You can set up one server with the Primary zone and the other with the Secondary copy. You can set them both to Forward to an ISP DNS for resolution of other domains that they don't hold. Anthony http://www.airdesk.co.uk

Re: Primary and Secondary vs. two primaries "Herb Martin" <news[ at ]learnquick.com> 6/3/2007 12:58:36 PM "Guy" <gapcnet[ at ]newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message news:eT1u6xcpHHA.3512[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... [Quoted Text] > I'm trying to harden our DNS servers. I currently have 2 servers (ns1 and > ns2). Ns1 is primary and ns2 is secondary. Neither are AD integrated. > > I know that a secondary zone server only maintains a limited copy of the > zones and queries the primary for other information. Not quite accurate -- a secondary keeps a READ-ONLY copy of the entire zone, and transfer the zone (changes) from another master (primary or secondary) of that same zone. > So if the primary goes down, it seems that the secondary is somewhat > useless. No, the secondary cannot be used (as-is) for making updates, either manual or dynamice, but it works "just fine" without the Primary for some period of time (until expiration.) > Do you see any downsides to having ns1 & ns2 both being primary (other > than having to manually two servers)? Yes, all changes must be maintained manually on both -- increasing the administrative overhead and the potential for problems. This is not the way (ordinary) DNS zones are run. -- Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP http://www.LearnQuick.Com (phone on web site)

Re: Primary and Secondary vs. two primaries "Kevin D. Goodknecht Sr. [MVP]" <admin[ at ]nospam.WFTX.US> 6/3/2007 3:31:07 PM Read inline please. In news:eT1u6xcpHHA.3512[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl, Guy <gapcnet[ at ]newsgroup.nospam> typed: [Quoted Text] > Im trying to harden our DNS servers. I currently have 2 servers (ns1 > and ns2). Ns1 is primary and ns2 is secondary. Neither are AD > integrated. > > I know that a secondary zone server only maintains a limited copy of > the zones and queries the primary for other information. The Secondary zone is a full copy of the zone that is not writable, and from the querying client's viewpoint, there is no difference. The only time a secondary needs to contact its master is to refresh its zone data. Otherwise, it operates totally independent of its master. > So if the primary goes down, it seems that the secondary is somewhat > useless. Not true, the Secondary will continue to operate normally, until the Expire time on the SOA record has elapsed. > Do you see any downsides to having ns1 & ns2 both being primary > (other than having to manually two servers)? One would be trouble, imagine having a hundred domains set up this way. Unless the zones are Active Directory Integrated, in which all zones are Primary Masters, you should stick to what is tried and true and keep it simple. -- Best regards, Kevin D. Goodknecht Sr. [MVP] Hope This Helps =================================== When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit from your issue, to respond directly to me remove the nospam. from my email address. =================================== http://www.lonestaramerica.com/ http://support.wftx.us/ http://message.wftx.us/ =================================== Use Outlook Express?... Get OE_Quotefix: It will strip signature out and more http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/ =================================== Keep a back up of your OE settings and folders with OEBackup: http://www.oehelp.com/OEBackup/Default.aspx ===================================

Re: Primary and Secondary vs. two primaries "Guy" <gapcnet[ at ]newsgroup.nospam> 6/3/2007 3:49:55 PM Thanks to all that have replied so quickly "Guy" <gapcnet[ at ]newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message news:eT1u6xcpHHA.3512[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... [Quoted Text] > I'm trying to harden our DNS servers. I currently have 2 servers (ns1 and > ns2). Ns1 is primary and ns2 is secondary. Neither are AD integrated. > > I know that a secondary zone server only maintains a limited copy of the > zones and queries the primary for other information. So if the primary > goes down, it seems that the secondary is somewhat useless. > > > > Do you see any downsides to having ns1 & ns2 both being primary (other > than having to manually two servers)? > >