Is this OK with a slave server for 9.1.0b1?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <92g6jr$33f at pub3.rc.vix.com>,
Richard Murphy <richard at espsun.space.swri.edu> wrote:
>I notice that I have entries like this for certain zones: (I did not create
>these entries)
>
>zone "whatever" {
>type slave;
>file "whatever";
>masters {129.162.100.100; 129.162.200.100};
>};
>
>There is one server with interfaces on two different subnets, 100.100 &
>200.100. Does this do any good or any harm
>to essentially list the same server under multiple addresses? I notice

It should be good.  If either subnet goes down, you'll still be able to
connect to the master through the other subnet.

>9.1.0b1 seems to take a very long time to get the zone
>data from servers listed like this.

If it's performing differently in BIND 9 than it did in BIND 8, it sounds
like a bug.  Is the slave server able to connect to both addresses equally
well?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at genuity.net
Genuity, 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.