1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 28 May 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 294       Contents: Re: 2 Nameservers on 1 node  Re: 2 Nameservers on 1 node  Re: 2 Nameservers on 1 node  Re: 2 Nameservers on 1 node ! Re: Educating potential VMS users ! Re: Educating potential VMS users 0 Re: speeding up LAVC with switch instead of hub?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 12:03:58 -0700 0 From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>$ Subject: Re: 2 Nameservers on 1 node0 Message-ID: <nP6dnTJUDr7iP-XZRVn-hg@comcast.com>    Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:L > I have 2 nameservers in my network. One for the outside/Internet (externalI > IP addresses, few nodes, non recursive) and one for the inside/Intranet M > (RFC1918 addresses, more nodes, recursive). And due to server consolidation J > I'd like to run them on the same Alpha. Problem is the same domain name.  > Run one on a different port, and remap the port in the router.  H Well, if your NAT router can do that.  It seems that some now don't have
 that feature.    -- glen    ------------------------------    Date: 27 May 2006 21:47:24 -02006 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)$ Subject: Re: 2 Nameservers on 1 node, Message-ID: <4478c8ec$1@news.langstoeger.at>  c In article <nP6dnTJUDr7iP-XZRVn-hg@comcast.com>, glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: ! >Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote: M >> I have 2 nameservers in my network. One for the outside/Internet (external J >> IP addresses, few nodes, non recursive) and one for the inside/IntranetN >> (RFC1918 addresses, more nodes, recursive). And due to server consolidationK >> I'd like to run them on the same Alpha. Problem is the same domain name.  > ? >Run one on a different port, and remap the port in the router.   I I should have thought of that already, but no (OTOH I'm just starting ;-) < I only thought of different IPs so far. Thanks for the idea.  I >Well, if your NAT router can do that.  It seems that some now don't have  >that feature.  I We'll see. If not, maybe I bite and replace it by a WLAN/VOIP/LPD/... ;-)    --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------    Date: 27 May 2006 21:40:00 -02006 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)$ Subject: Re: 2 Nameservers on 1 node, Message-ID: <4478c730$1@news.langstoeger.at>  O In article <op.s97njyd6lvpiaf@hyrrokkin>, "Tom LINDEN" <tom@kednos.com> writes: F >This is not quite the same, but I give each node a RFC1918 IP addressH >alias, 10.0.0.x  in addition to their externally routable IPs.  The W2KA >servers have only RFC1918 IPs and they are NATted in the router, C >so they are not exposed to the outside.  So the W2K box thinks the F >DNS address is 10.0.0.x, even though it is running on a VMS node withJ >a routable IP.  Seems to me you could do something similar.  With ifconf= >ig G >you can create more than one alias, so you could have isolated subnets  >on the same lan.   E 1) I've only one external address for my whole LAN, so I use NAT/PAT. L (because I want my VMS system to be exposed to the internet as DNS/SMTP/FTP)  B 2) I could add a second IP address from another (RFC1918) range toH my Alpha DNS Server (for binding one server to one address and the otherI one to the second) but then again I'd need a different DSL router because G mine doesn't support 2 different IP address[es|ranges] on the LAN side.   I 3) I still don't know if I could combine the 2 different DNS feature sets J into one DNS server or otherwise how to configure/autostart 2 DNS servers.   --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 17:30:56 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> $ Subject: Re: 2 Nameservers on 1 node, Message-ID: <4478C4FF.DCAC1E1F@teksavvy.com>   Tom LINDEN wrote: & > but why do you need two DNS servers?    ! Say your domain is chocolate.com.   G When I, from the internet, request translation of www.chocolate.com , I * am expected to get an internet IP address.B But when a users on the intranet requests www.chocolate.com, he is2 expecting to get an intranet IP address (10.*.*.*)  H I had been told one that Bind 9 had that capability (providing different= zone files based on IP of the requestor). But Bind 8 doesn't.    Doesn't Alpha have Bind 9 ?     H To Phillip: the simplest solution is to outsource your public DNS serverE to an outside shop. This way, the DNS server you have in-house serves G only the intranet and need not be concerned about serving requests from  the net.   ------------------------------    Date: 27 May 2006 14:16:37 -0700 From: davidc@montagar.com * Subject: Re: Educating potential VMS usersB Message-ID: <1148764597.310999.57980@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>  > Also try http://www.nerdbooks.com, which happens to have theirB brick-and-mortar near me in Richardson, TX.  They have things I'veA never seen at Fry's or Barnes and Noble.  They have 7 titles with F OpenVMS in the name in stock (all Digital Press) at prices that do notF require vital organ donation (do you really need TWO kidneys???).  TheB most expensive of the 7 is "OpenVMS Internals and Data Structures:< Memory Management" at $69USD (Normal cover price is $80USD).   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 16:34:42 -0700 # From: "Tom LINDEN" <tom@kednos.com> * Subject: Re: Educating potential VMS users) Message-ID: <op.s98g341mlvpiaf@hyrrokkin>   @ On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:16:37 -0700, <davidc@montagar.com> wrote:  @ > Also try http://www.nerdbooks.com, which happens to have theirD > brick-and-mortar near me in Richardson, TX.  They have things I'veC > never seen at Fry's or Barnes and Noble.  They have 7 titles with I > OpenVMS in the name in stock (all Digital Press) at prices that do not=   I > require vital organ donation (do you really need TWO kidneys???).  The=   D > most expensive of the 7 is "OpenVMS Internals and Data Structures:> > Memory Management" at $69USD (Normal cover price is $80USD). > C Do They Have "Engineering a Compiler, VAX-11 Code Generation and  =   
 Optimization"  Also from Digital Press?     -- =  E Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 13:37:10 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 9 Subject: Re: speeding up LAVC with switch instead of hub? , Message-ID: <44788E44.2B17D162@teksavvy.com>   Paul Sture wrote: J > If the telco does upgrade, make sure you ask for it. I say this since myI > cable company has just upgraded their standard package to 3000/256 kbs, H > and my latest bill says that's what I'm on, but my connection is still. > only giving me the previous. slower, speeds.  ? DSL is very different from DOCSIS cable modems in that respect.   F When a DOCSIS modem is powered up, it uses BOOTP/TFTP (or eequivalent)H to fetch its configuration from the ISP over the coax. This config givesH lots of parameters, including speeds, number of devices that are allowed3 to talk via the modem, various ISP filters etc etc.   D Once it has received its config, the modem is good to go "forever".   C ISPs may upgrade your profile, but that won't take effect until the G modem next reboots and asks for a new copy of its parameters.  ISPs can F remotely trigger this process, but they often don't because this wouldE put quite a strain on their TFTP/BOOTP servers and also all customers F would get the upgrade at the same time and it would be a big change onF the network. By waiting for customers to eventually power off/on theirF modems, the upgrade is effectively spread over a longer period of time0 and the ISP can gauge the impact on its network.  H With DSL, upgrades are done by changing the config at the central officeG and as soon as they do this, the modems at the CO and homes renegotiate ? the speed to the new setting. So the actual upgrades have to be H staggered. And they work from CO to CO. The problem with DSL is that notF all customers are technically able to get the upgrade so it requires aD bit more finesse with their scripts to upgrade only those whose line quality is good enough.    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.294 ************************