DNS problems this morning - CORRECTION

[lee]

Tim <ignored_mailbox at yahoo.com.au> writes:

> Tim:
>>> I'd say, if you're installing BIND, then run a DHCP server on that
>>> same computer, and disable any other DHCP servers on your LAN (such
>>> as in your modem/router).  Configure your DHCP server to tell all
>>> clients on your network the addresses for configuring your network
>>> (gateway, DNS servers, etc.).  Then leave NetworkManager running
>>> normally, without any manual configuration on each client.
>>>
>>> That gets you a normal running network, where each client is
>>> centrally configured from one server.  There's no messing around with
>>> any client configuration on any client.
>>>
>>> You can have dynamic or static IPs, for your clients, this way.  It
>>> depends on how you configure your DHCP server.
>
> lee:
>> Why waste resources by running all this?
>
> If bothering to install a name server, why stop at a half-arsed job?  On
> anything more than a two or three machine LAN, it rapidly becomes a
> nuisance to maintain hosts files.  Been there, done that, not going to
> do it again.

Apparently the OP doesn't want to set up more than a caching-only name
server.  Remember that I recommended to set up named instead because it
has its advantages.

> Once done, it's easy enough to have the name server resolve local
> machine names (which certainly aids some LAN networking, such as
> internal mail, or other internal LAN or external services, new system
> installs, and all manner of things become easier when you don't have to
> laboriously hand-configure the client).  And it's easy enough to
> configure your DHCP server to set client addresses as desired.  It's
> even relatively easy enough to tie the DHCP and DNS servers together, so
> one updates the other, when devices are added.
>
> I did this years ago, and never had to fudge around with hosts files
> again.  Never had to memorise which IPs referred to which machines, as I
> could use hostnames on any machine.  Never had to memorise all the
> parameters that I'd have to set up into a client's configuration to make
> it join the network.  Just plug in the cable and it goes.
>
>> It's not like the IPs would change 
>
> Ya think?
>
> You never get guest computers, or get asked to take in someone else's
> computer and fix it, or install Linux on it for them?  You never add new
> devices?  Some of which really expect DHCP (network printers, gaming
> consoles, media devices).  Or had to change some hardware, only to find
> that the bastard device wants to be on a 192.168.1.x network rather than
> a 192.168.0.x network that you're using, and you have to manually change
> everything around, individually, to work past this.
>
> DHCP is a falsedeity-send, not a curse.

No, I don't have these problems and no need for DHCP, so why waste
resources on it.


-- 
Fedora 17