Slave nameserver question
Kevin Darcy
kcd at chrysler.com
Thu Oct 2 02:31:16 UTC 2008
Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <gc0udg$1k6p$1 at sf1.isc.org>, Kevin Darcy <kcd at chrysler.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Cherney John-CJC030 wrote:
>>
>>> Besides being a bad idea from a general design perspective, is it
>>> possible to set up a nameserver as a slave for a domain, but have the
>>> masters field point to itself? ("I am a slave for this information, and
>>> the master is myself.") In thinking about it, it seems like it should be
>>> OK. The slave will always be able to contact the master, so the data
>>> should never go stale. The serial number is always up to date, so there
>>> won't be any bandwidth used in zone transfers. Is there something
>>> somewhere that would make this not work? (Something in the code for
>>> executing refreshes or parsing the named.conf file?)
>>>
>>>
>> Easy enough to test...
>>
>> (Tick tock, tick tock...)
>>
>> Yeah, it works.
>>
>> But... why? Just define it as a master.
>>
>
> Maybe what he's really planning on doing is listing two masters: the
> real master and itself. Pointing to the real master causes updates to
> propagate, pointing to itself prevents expiration.
>
"the master", singular.
"... there won't be any bandwidth used in zone transfers".
Seems like he's setting up a master zone, but for whatever reason wants
to call it a slave.
- Kevin
More information about the bind-users
mailing list