Forum Moderators: phranque
and its working perfectly,however some times DNS server will close with an error and need to restart.During this no one can send us emails.
TO SOLVED THIS:
I am thinking if I use a Third party free DNS service (Like zoneedit ) which will allow me to create a new nameserver.
So is it ok,If I create a namer server there pointing to my server IP and add a third nameserver at my domain registrar.
so at end of day My domain will have 3 nameserver values:
ns.mydomain.com
ns1.mydomain.com
NS899.zoneedit.com
Is it perfect to do?
Free and for-pay third-party DNS servers, as well as registrar-provided servers, will supply you with at least the required 2-server minimum. I don't see much point in mixing them up like this.
But, yes, it can be done. The best way is to use "zone transfers" to update from a master. Otherwise, you have to be careful that all the servers are IDENTICALLY configured.
If the reason you want to run your own server is that you know how to configure it and you prefer not to learn how to configure a different server, you can still use your server as a "hidden" master - the third-party domain servers will get updates from your server, but your server won't be acting as a domain server on the Internet.
Can you explain above line further?
PS:mydomain.com is hosted on a server that runs IIS and a DNS server with nameservers NS.mydomain.com and NS1.mydomain.com
Like this
NS.mydomain.com
NS1.mydomain.com
NS.Thirdparty.com (Pointing to mydomain.com server)
NS2.Thirdparty.com (Pointing to mydomain.com server)
If yes,will it enable if first 2 nameservers are down,users will still able to see site and send emails using last 2 nameservers?
If yes,will it enable if first 2 nameservers are down,users will still able to see site and send emails using last 2 nameservers?
Yes, and no.
Multiple nameservers are not tried in any particular order. The applicable standards are quite explicit that you should not attach any meaning to the order in which they are listed. (Unlike MX records, which have a "priority" attached to them.)
Most resolvers pick one at random. After some time-out period, if no response is received from the server, the resolver will try another server. The timeout period is fairly long, and while users will eventually get to your site in case of a failure, they won't be happy, as they will have encountered a significant delay.
You can see why, then, it's important for ALL of your nameservers to be reliable. It just doesn't make sense to be using a nameserver that you know to be unreliable. I would recommend not using your own nameserver in any case - but particular in this case when you are having trouble with it.
NS.Thirdparty.com (Pointing to mydomain.com server)
NS2.Thirdparty.com (Pointing to mydomain.com server)
It doesn't work like this. Nameservers don't point to nameservers. Root servers point to nameservers.
You can, however, have all but one of your nameservers (or even all of your nameservers) periodically refresh their records from a "master". If the "master" is not listed in the root as a nameserver for the domain, then it is a "hidden master", and isn't directly involved in providing DNS resolution to users.
Most third-party DNS services permit you to use zone transfers as an alternative to configuring their DNS records through their UI.
mydomain.com is hosted on a server that runs IIS and a DNS server with nameservers NS.mydomain.com and NS1.mydomain.com
This is a Really Bad Idea. Multiple nameservers should be on multiple physical machines, preferably in multiple geographic locations (different cities). There's really no point in running two nameservers on the same computer, except to satisfy the requirement for a minimum of two nameservers, when there is absolutely no way that you can provide two geographically-dispersed nameservers.
These days, there's just no reason to do this, since there are free third-party DNS servers available, and all of the will provide you with BOTH of the required servers, along with the required geographic dispersion.
