>On Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 12:52:52PM +1000, Adam Todd wrote:
>> A DNS server itself can, by using the /etc/resolve.conf file use another
>> DNS server to gain it's answers and thus not be a forwarder, caching server
>> or anything else.
>> 
>

I didn't write that too well did I.

Let me rephrase it.  A Machine running a DNS server can by using
RESOLV.CONF for it's name service applications (dig, nslookup etc) resolve
names from another DNS server, without ever looking at the data in the
local DNS Server.

Let me set you an example.


A user has a Firewall Server running Unix and a NAME Daemon on it connected
to the Big Wide World.  They have their PUBLIC DNS data on this server,
allowing users outside their local network to find all the services they
wish to advertise.  The resolv.conf file points to another internal machine.

Inside the lan, they have another DNS server on another machine which has a
very different DNS zone file content.  It allows the internal users to find
themselves and the external services also.

Fairly simple.  Sorry if my comments weren't clear.  I was brief (for a
change).  Not vivid as I'm constantly accused of being.  Proves I might as
well stick to the long winded descriptions because when I don't, people
don't understand.

>Are you sure about this? I know named will load in /etc/resolv.conf on
>boot (presumeable for resolution prior to named reaching operational

NAMED, doesn't load recolv.conf at all.  (At least last time I looked.)
Resolve.conf is used by ancillary applications such as NSLOOKUP and DIG.

These applications can run perfectly well on a machine that DOES NOT HAVE A
BIND (named) daemon running on it.

You are TOTALLY correct.  (I'm pretty sure it doesn't even do it at start up)

>level). From a brief look at the code and a test, resolv.conf played
>no part in resolving by named.

Correct.  Totally.

>Unless of course you are thinking about
>the host, dig and nslookup utilities which would make use of it -

Yes, correct.

>but Kim's survey wouldn't be using those on the target machine.

I forget the relevance of this comment.

>Perhaps in the public interest of expanding the pitiful education of
>the Australian ISP mind you could provide us with some pointers to
>the line numbers in the bind source code.

No you are correct, I just didn't explain myself as fully as I normally would.

>(cue joke about 4 figure  invoices).

OK, I'll send it to you :)  (I am laughing BTW)