Re: vpnc and determining correct routes

[Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>]

On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 19:06 +0200, Thomas Liebetraut wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> Dan Williams schrieb:
> > Well, if you don't run a local caching nameserver, then you will never
> > get split DNS.  That's just the way it is, because the glibc folks don't
> > want to complicated the core resolver with the split DNS stuff.
> I for myself don't need one. It was just a general consideration what
> would be if there are two different DNS in two different networks that
> don't know about the hosts in the other network.
> As I don't need it, I would not be eager to have a bind running on my
> box, if it can be avoided.

Out of curiosity, what?  Besides the memory hit of course, which you'd
get with any caching nameserver.  Something has to provide that
functionality, and if not bind, which is well understood, fairly well
maintained, and extremely widely used everywhere, then what?

Dan

> Regards,
> Thomas
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFFPPaHxVmZpTAq4IgRAhfcAJ4nMtRQWgcNizYwOLSjMlFKtgoDpwCfRg7F
> Vn8bmvWupeIbFbeUBUKwkdc=
> =5eOL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----