"Hidden" masters/primary.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <03a401bf1067$84b69f60$b477a8ce at acmebw.com>,
Cricket Liu <cricket at acmebw.com> wrote:
>> If you don't list the primary master in the SOA record, dynamic update
>> won't work, since it sends the updates to the server in the MNAME field.
>> If you're using a hidden primary, it should still be safe to list the
>> hidden primary in the SOA record.  Only the NS records are important in
>> classifying a server as hidden or not.
>
>Actually, this behavior varies with the implementation.  The ISC's
>res_update() only sends updates to the MNAME server if it also appears
>in the NS list for the zone.  This is the behavior specified in RFC 2136.

Are there plans to update the RFC to fix this?  I expect there may be a
number of sites that want to do dynamic updates to a hidden primary, and
this specifically precludes it.  This is one instance where I think MS may
be justified in violating the spec -- it's flat-out wrong.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.