Multiple "named" instances

Dr_Stein · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2003 4:32 pm Post subject: Multiple "named" instances

Greetings, all!

I'm moving a box to a colo facility, and I want to run 2 "named" instances, 1 listening on each card.

named-internal = eth1 (handling internal DNS)
named-external = eth0 (handling external DNS)

Each will have its own directory for zone files/etc. I don't want to use BIND views because this is a slave DNS server and views are a pain to set up.

What's the best way to do this? can I just re-name the startup scripts?

Anybody done something like this before?

rtn · Guru Joined: 15 Nov 2002 Posts: 427

Sure, it's really a piece of cake. Just make sure that you don't leave
ambiguous references around, like /etc/init.d/named and /etc/named.conf.
Rename everything to that they reflect the instance that they support, it will
really help in the long run to eliminate confusion. The other option, of course,
would be to put all of the config files in their own directory, like /var/named/eth0/
or something, and use the command-line to point named to the correct conf
file.

--rtn

kashani · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:49 pm Post subject: running two instances of bind

I'd probably do something to similar to the following

/var/named
/var/named2/
/etc/bind/
/etc/bind2/
/var/log/named/
/var/log/named2/

In the config file I'd set the logging to specific dir and to bind to on of the the IP's. Otherwise you'll have two servers sending logs to /var/log/messages and you'll never be able to tell what's going on.

For a good logging config that auto-rotates check out
http://www.badapple.net/tech/bind-logging.html

the startup script should look roughly like
named -c /etc/bind2/named.conf

kashani
_________________
Will personally fix your server in exchange for motorcycle related shop tools in good shape.

gfdsa · n00b Joined: 01 Jul 2002 Posts: 74

r u sure u need to binds? may be its internal options will suit you? did you hear about "views"?

Dr_Stein · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:39 pm Post subject:

Yeah, I don't want to use views because one of the interfaces is going to be on a site-to-site VPN while the other one is going to be a public interface (behind a static NAT..fw-1 box)

vikwiz · n00b Joined: 01 Mar 2003 Posts: 50 Location: Budapest

Don't you chroot named?

Dr_Stein · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2003 3:03 am Post subject:

I suppose I could.
chrooting BIND isn't a foolproof solution, tho. Merely another step.

Honestly, I've never had *any* trouble with BIND. I have never personally met anyone that's had trouble with BIND. Those that I encountered elsewhere on the net that had BIND problems, were running waaay outdated versions.

It's also firewalled to the point where it really couldn't *do* anything. The only traffic that can go to/from the interface is DNS traffic anyway.

vikwiz · n00b Joined: 01 Mar 2003 Posts: 50 Location: Budapest

mglauche · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2003 12:24 pm Post subject:

a good solution is to run bind on an internal network machine and install dns-cache from the djb-dns tools on a border router .. so the external machines only access the dnscache client

Dr_Stein · Posted: Tue May 06, 2003 7:48 pm Post subject:

I went ahead and chrooted named. Got bored. Fun project. :-)