Stealth dns and SOA record

[Jim Reid]

>>>>> "Nicholas" == Nicholas Lee <nj.lee at kiwa.co.nz> writes:

    Nicholas> Furthermore, would I be correct in say that NOTIFYs wont
    Nicholas> work if the published primary is in the SOA entry and
    Nicholas> the other published secondaries slave off it.

No, not unless you explicitly tell the master (primary) name server
not to send NOTIFYs.

    Nicholas> So the unpublished primary wont ever decide to send
    Nicholas> NOTIFY messages out.

No. The master server will by default sent NOTIFYs to the NS records
in the newly-loaded zone. All that matters is that the SOA record's
MNAME field is syntactically valid. An old version - 8.1? - of BIND
exhibited the behaviour you describe if the MNAME in the SOA record
didn't point at the master server, but that code is history now. The
only requirement to list the master name server in the SOA MNAME is if
dynamic DNS is used. It's the only way of reliably identifying the
master server and dynamic DNS clients need to know this.