stealth server

[Kevin Darcy]

Brad Knowles wrote:

> At 4:15 PM -0400 7/5/01, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>
> >  Hmmm... I've never heard "silent primary" before. I call mine a
> >  "hidden master".
>
>         I called mine a "hidden master", too.
>
> >  When it's AD-integrated, Win2K doesn't care about the serial number
> >of a zone,
> >  since it has no effect on replication amongst AD/Win2K servers. And it's a
> >  debatable point whether the DNS protocol actually *requires*
> >  incrementation[*] of the serial number for every change, when AXFR/IXFR
> >  is not being used for replication.
>
>         Uh, yes.  Every change to the zone requires a change to the
> serial number.

Sigh. I just went through this on namedroppers. To summarize, although it was
clearly *intended* for the SOA.SERIAL to be incremented for every change to a
zone, there is apparently nowhere in the RFC's where this is explicitly
*mandated*, except in the context of describing optional features like
AXFR/IXFR or Dynamic Update. So there's plenty of wiggle room for an implementor
to say that it's not mandatory in the general case...


- Kevin