Primary DNS server 4.9.7, secondary 8.1.2?

[Gary Cooper_1]

Until recently, my network was all HP-UX 10.20. I have now replaced two of my machines which were acting as secondary DNS servers (and NIS, but I've not gone there yet!). The new machines are running HP-UX 11.11 and I would like to set them up as secondary DNS servers. My primary DNS server is still HP-UX 10.20. Is this possible? My old setup used named.boot, the new named seems to use named.conf. The other thing which hasn't helped is that my copy of O'Reilly DNS & BIND is circa 1994.

Any help would be gratefully received.

Thanks,

Gary Cooper

[Steven E. Protter]

This is a Linux doc, but it will work just fine with BIND 8 or 9.

Though I run a 4.9.x DNS server, I created it based on /etc/hosts databases and an not aware as to whether the database can be mirgrated or not. I think not.

When I did BIND 9 I did the databases over new acccording to this procedure:
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/DNS-HOWTO.html

SEP

[Kevin Wright]

sure it'll work. There's a script called named-bootconf that will change the DB format from 4.9 to 8.X. Why would you be using a 4.9 nameserver these days is beyond me..you really should upgrade that. I would recommend either 8.2.3 or 9.2.2.

[harry d brown jr · Accepted solution]

We are converting/migrating to BIND 9.2 with DNS Caching. The HP servers running BIND 9.2 are actually talking to a DNS server running BIND 4.x.

(1) get 9.2 ==> http://www.software.hp.com/cgi-bin/swdepot_parser.cgi/cgi/displayProductInfo.pl?productNumber=BIND9.2

(2) get the new O'reilly book (not bill's though)

(3) replace your 10.20 box as it is obsolete (as of 6/30/2003).

live free or die
harry

[Gary Cooper_1]

Thanks for the replies Guys,

Firstly, why am I using 4.9? I tend to operate the philosophy "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

I must admit that after migrating all of my production machines to 11.11, I had forgotten that 10.20 was obsoleted...

...a quick chat with my manager and we've decided to migrate the primary DNS server to 11.11, so I guess the initial problem has gone away.

One other question - the first machine that I was looking at to set up as a secondary DNS server appears to be running named 8.1.2. My inclination is to run with the 'out of the box' named, rather than go to 9.2. My network is completely stand-alone and not connected to any others or the Internet. Is it worth the effort of going to bind 9.2?

Thanks,

Gary