Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have a client that has two domains: (their internal network) and (their production network).

Some of their web services were having connectivity issues on their production domain. They access their via the address (although it is in the domain) and it was failing to find the service because the DNS records were unavailable for that domain.

To solve this I see two possible solutions: 1) create zone on for "" and setup host records for hosts that are needed (ie. www) or 2) configure forwarders on to point to the NS for

The problem I see with option 2 is if is unavailable then would be unable to resolve names for that domain. However, I believe the names should be cached, correct? So that would only occur when a cache has expired and the NS are unavailable. Any suggestions or advice on these options? Maybe there is a better way to do this? I don't spend a lot of time in DNS so, please excuse.

share|improve this question

Why would be unavailable? If due to some type of service/infrastructure outage then being able to resolve DNS for that domain really doesn't do any good... if the resources that DNS would resolve to can't be reached.

My suggestion would be to use option 2. It's going to be more reliable (in terms of getting proper DNS resolution) and is going to be less wotk on your part.

If you go with option 1 then you've essentially got a stale, static copy of the DNS zone and it's corresponding records, which will need to be manually created and updated.

I say defer to the authorative name servers for the domain in question.

Another option would be to use DNS stub zones.

share|improve this answer has different maintenance windows than so that would be one excuse why it would be unavailable. Also, they are separate sites so Internet connectivity at is not redundant like so any Internet outage would be more common to happen at – David George Sep 28 '11 at 14:53
Which means that having working DNS resolution is pointless if resources aren't available due to maintenence or a borked internet connection. – joeqwerty Sep 28 '11 at 14:54
As I stated in my question the resource (ie. "") is actually in the site. – David George Sep 28 '11 at 14:58
I'm a little confused. You want stable DNS name resolution, even if the resources that DNS is resolving to aren't available? That seems counterintuitive. I'm probably misunderstanding the problem and your question. Can you tell me what the difference between the "internal" network and the "production" network is? Generally a production network is understood to be the internal resource network, so I'm confused by your delineation of them. – joeqwerty Sep 28 '11 at 15:09
No. The resource would still be avilable. Server X is in PROD, but it's "DNS" is actually using the TLD. Production is the Internet facing SaaS network. Internal is the in-house company netowrk. – David George Sep 28 '11 at 15:19

DNS records for task

$ origin
site IN A x.x.x.x

$ origin
share|improve this answer
This is not a NAMED server – David George Oct 12 '11 at 13:32
origin become obsolete, IN maybe too, but not idea of CNAMEing over domains – Lazy Badger Oct 12 '11 at 13:45

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.