Re: NT-DNS

[nto2584 @ dsacg1 . dsac . dla . mil (Steven C. Payne)]

> 
> 
> On Tue, 4 Jun 1996 13:30:15 -0700
> Bill Stout <bill .
 stout @
 hidata .
 com>
> Wrote Subject: NT DNS in 4.0b2
> "The only drawback I've seen is not being able to connect to non-NT DNS server properties."
> Can you explain exactly what you mean. 
> Will an internal DNS running on NT4.0b2  not be able to say talk to a Unix firewall??

Hi,
I setup an older version of DNS and in my testing, I ran into
2 problems which maybe you can elaborate on in this new version.

First, I could not just "move" my zone and revs to the NT server
because we do secondary DNS for 50 domains.  This equates to 50 zone
files and 50 rev files.  Well When I set up the dns boot file on the
NT box, I started the service it ran for maybe 5 mins caching and then died,
no errors, nothing.  I also could not stop the service, I had to reboot
the NT server.   

So, I thought ok, scale it back to just ONE domain, (my local one)
I deleted all other domains and  started the service again, it cached for
about 2 minutes and died.  Again, I tried to stop the service and
it would not allow me to, so I had to reboot the NT server.
This happened on a domain with around 2500 entries.

I scaled it back to only 500 entries and tried again.  This
time the services started, ran with no errors.

I then went to a unix box and tried nslookup on hosts I new
were in the DNS files on the NT server, I got absolutely
NO responses from the NT server, and timed out on every
attempt I tried to query on.

was able to use the nslookup client on the NT box and query EVERYTHING
in the NT's domain files.  I even configured the WINS entry in the
zone file and that worked, but ONLY from the NT client.
I never got nslookup on unix boxes (hpux, solaris, interactive, bsdi, sco)
to work.
 

My 2 problems are does NT service other clients than just NT,
and second, how much can you cache? If you can't cache secondary
servers then I don't see NT DNS as doing anything worth wile in DNS.
BTW the server had 64 mg of ram, and was not doing anything, it was
pretty much just idling.

Is this what you were talking about?
thanks
steve
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
>