Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!ucbvax!RIMFAXE.DIKU.DK!thorinn From: thorinn@RIMFAXE.DIKU.DK (Lars Henrik Mathiesen) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains Subject: Pros and cons of secondary name servers off site Message-ID: <9103071102.AA12085@rimfaxe.diku.dk> Date: 7 Mar 91 11:02:06 GMT References: <910306.205519z.05578.wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: inet Organization: The Internet Lines: 20 From: Rich Wales When I suggested to a colleague around here that we ought to arrange for an off-site secondary server for our domain info, he countered that doing this would be pointless. He reasoned that, if his department's machines were all down, no one would be able to send him mail (or TELNET or FTP to him) anyway -- and anyone trying to send mail to his depart- ment would get temporary "name server failure" errors and try again later. So (he reasoned), why bother with off-site backup name service? 1) If you have a backup MX record pointing off-site, it's obviously a good idea for it to be visible when you're down. 2) Some mailers will only send mail via IP if they can see an A (or MX) record. If you're down, it may go to UUCP (and be bounced). -- Lars Mathiesen, DIKU, U of Copenhagen, Denmark [uunet!]mcsun!diku!thorinn Institute of Datalogy -- we're scientists, not engineers. thorinn@diku.dk