According to what I searched on this site, ISPconfig 3 works differently from version 2. So I would like to get it straight for version 3, the newest version. Do I need to create a new DNS Zone for every new website I add - Yes or No? I am using a domain registrar that does not offer A records entry unless I use the DNS servers they provide: ns1.dns-diy.net ns2.dns-diy.net So that gives me two options: (1) Use their DNS name servers they provide. (2) Use my own name servers ns1.angelright.com and ns2.angelright.com I created which point to the server IP. I tested both options and both work. But both cases I created DNS Zones inside ISPconfig - is this necessary or not needed at all? I have about 50 websites to set up on the server. I know some of the folks who used ISPconfig 2 asked this type of questions a lot. So if someone could be kind enough to clarify, that would be great.
1. Create Client 2. Create website (and SQL if needed) and assign to client 3. Create DNS zone 4. Create mailboxes
Thank you. So this is for ISPconfig 3+? I thought the step 3 of creating DNS Zone is not needed. Well, I guess there is no way to avoid that. I still have about 30 some sites to do :-(
It depends, if you use your own DNS servers or not. There has to be a DNS server that translates the domain name to the ip of your webserver. So if you run your own DNS server, you need to create DNS zones. There is an option to import zones.
To reiterate @Tuumke, With option 1 you wouldn't need to add a DNS zone in ISPConfig. With option 2, you would. Either way usually works, and there are pros and cons of each. Eg. your registrar probably has numerous DNS servers while it sounds like you only have a single server, so DNS may be more resilient using their servers, which would favor option 1. But if you use DKIM with your email (which you may want to for good reasons), it's easier to let ISPConfig generate the DKIM keys and publish them in its own DNS records, which would favor option 2.
