Dynamic updates AND multiple zones referencing one zone file?
Kevin Darcy
kcd at chrysler.com
Wed Jan 9 23:31:14 UTC 2008
Jack Tavares wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org
>> [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Darcy
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:03 PM
>> To: bind-users at isc.org
>> Subject: Re: Dynamic updates AND multiple zones referencing
>> one zone file?
>>
>> Jack Tavares wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My question is:
>>>>> Am I missing somne trick to do this or is it not possible to
>>>>> have multiple zones reference one file AND use dynamic updates
>>>>> on those zones?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It is not possible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thank you Mark.
>>> I couldn't see a way that would make it work.
>>> I am going to have to find another mechanism.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It should be possible to enhance whatever frontend mechanism
>> is making
>> those Dynamic Updates, to make multiple updates to different zones.
>>
>> - Kevin
>>
>>
>>
> I tried that. It doesn't work either.
>
> with this setup:
> zone "test.com." {
> type master;
> file "db.test";
> allow-pdate {
> localhost;
> };
> };
> zone "test.org." {
> type master;
> file "db.test";
> allow-update {
> localhost;
> };
> };
>
> If I try to make both updates at once
>
>> [root at d35:Active] config # nsupdate
>> server 127.0.0.1
>> update add blah.test.com 500 in a 1.2.3.4
>> update add blah.test.org 500 in a 1.2.3.4
>>
>>
> update failed: NOTZONE
>
>
> If I try to make them individually the first
> one succeeds and the 2nd fails
> # nsupdate
>
>> 127.0.0.1
>> update add blah.test.com 500 in a 1.2.3.4
>>
>> update add blah.test.org 500 in a 1.2.3.4
>>
>>
> update failed: SERVFAIL
>
> Unless you see a problem with my methods?
>
You can't update different zones in the same *packet*, but you can do so
in the same *session*, e.g.
update add blah.test.com 500 in a 1.2.3.4
send
update add blah.test.org 500 in a 1.2.3.4
send
- Kevin
P.S. The named.conf snippet you show above still implies that you're trying to use the same zonefile for different dynamically-updateable zones. I thought we established that that approach doesn't work, and we're moving onto a different approach, i.e. performing the parallelization even above the Dynamic Update level.
More information about the bind-users
mailing list