ixfr problem

[Cricket Liu]

> I'm not sure why you brought up NS records then. I read your comment as
> implying that only nameservers in the NS records ("published"
authoritative
> servers) were appropriate targets for Dynamic Updates.

Let me rephrase my statement just slightly:

"I would have no qualms with an implementation that, for example, looks up
the zone's NS RRs and then looks to see whether one of those is the
resolver's
default name server to determine reachability."

I presented that as one possible method of determining which authoritative
name
server to send dynamic updates to--one that, in fact, uses the resolver's
configuration.  It's certainly not the only one.

> Apparently I haven't been making myself very clear. My understanding of
> Microsoft's vision of the future is that *all* DNS servers are
"multi-masters"
> for *all* relevant DNS zones. So then it doesn't matter where the update
goes,
> and, all other things being equal -- and they *are* equal at that point --
you
> may as well use the same nameserver which is first in your resolver
> configuration, aka your "preferred nameserver". While I may not agree with
this
> approach, I can't really say that it clearly violates the RFC, because of
all
> of that fuzzy language in there about "reachability".

Well, I've never heard anyone from Microsoft present that vision of the
future.

cricket

Men & Mice
DNS Software & Services
www.menandmice.com