ixfr problem

[Kevin Darcy]

Cricket Liu wrote:

> > > You sure about that?  The Windows 2000 dynamic update routines send
> their
> > > updates to the name server listed in the MNAME field of the SOA record
> of
> > > the zone they need to update, not to the first name server listed in
> their
> > > resolver's
> > > configuration.
> >
> > Some things I've heard from our local Microsoft techs implies that, at
> least
> > under some circumstances, Win2K will send updates to the "preferred
> > nameserver", i.e. the first in the resolver list. Presumably (hopefully)
> it
> > then falls back to using the SOA.MNAME nameserver if that doesn't work.
> This
> > behavior probably depends a lot on how you configure the client...
>
> I've never heard anything like that.  That would be completely non-
> RFC compliant behavior, to say nothing of the fact that it wouldn't
> generally work.

Actually, it *does* generally work when the "preferred nameserver"s are all
MSDNS and the zone in question is "AD-integrated", because then all of them
are "multi-master"s capable of accepting updates to the zone.

As for RFC-compliance, the RFC leaves a pretty big loophole when it says that
a client can try the nameservers in order of "reachability" instead of
unfailingly trying the SOA.MNAME nameserver first. It could be argued that
the "preferred nameserver" can be assumed to be more "reachable" than other
nameservers, since after all the client relies on it for name resolution.


- Kevin