$INCLUDEing an SOA record

[Joseph S D Yao]

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 11:29:52AM -0400, chris wrote:
> 
> I am using BIND 9.1.0, also tried 9.1.1 with the same result.  I am
> using views, and have 2 db files, with an $INCLUDE at the top.  The
> $INCLUDEd file contains records common to both zones, including the SOA
> record.  Here's an example for the domain test.
> 
> The common file, we'll call it common.db:
> 
> $TTL 1d
> @       IN      SOA     test.   hostmaster.test. (
>                            2001040625   ; Serial number
>                                 86400   ; Refresh every 1 day
>                                 3600    ; Retry every hour
>                                 604800  ; Expire every 7 days
>                                 14400 ) ; Minimum 1 day
> 
>         IN      NS      ops5.monmouth.com.
> 
> both    IN      A       10.11.12.13
> 
> The file that includes it, we'll call it private.db:
> 
> $INCLUDE test.common.db
> 
> hidden  IN      A       1.2.3.4
> 
> The second file that does this is very much like the first, only the
> hostname differs.
> 
> If I make a change to common.db, and reload, the change isn't reflected
> in private.db.  I have to restart named.  If I make any changes to
> private.db, even just open it, and save and exit in an editor, it works
> fine and a reload activates the changes.
> 
> I think named is not looking at the $INCLUDE if private.db's
> modification time hasn't changed.  Has anybody else seen this behaviour?

In BIND 8, it will look at the include file.  I would be surprised were
this not true in BIND 9.

However, it will not reload, since the serial number in the SOA has not
changed.  For this reason, I don't think that a common SOA is a good
idea.

-- 
Joe Yao				jsdy at cospo.osis.gov - Joseph S. D. Yao
COSPO/OSIS Computer Support					EMT-B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is not an official statement of COSPO policies.