secondary server install

[David Botham]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org] On
> Behalf Of Nico Kadel-Garcia
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 9:38 PM
> To: comp-protocols-dns-bind at isc.org
> Subject: Re: secondary server install
> 
> Barry Margolin wrote:
> 
> > In article <bgvllh$og3$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
> > Bill Friedman  <_billf at lfnetworking.com> wrote:
> >
> >>This is my first BIND install....a few questions.
> >>
> >>1. Is it okay to run different versions of BIND on master and slave
> >>servers, e.g. 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 respectively? I'd just as soon not
upgrade
> >>the existing server if not necessary.
> >
> >
> > Sure.  It would be pretty difficult for ISPs to provide secondary
DNS
> > services if they had to ensure that *all* their customers were
running
> the
> > same version of BIND as they were.  In fact, a large number of our
> > customers aren't even running BIND at all -- Windows 2000 DNS has
become
> > very popular in the past few years.
> 
> This answer does not compute. He's discussing a master and slave, not
a
> master DNS server and the DNS *client* on a user's desktop. Slaves are
> used to publish the DNS information to spare DNS servers, so if the
> first one is unavailable or farther away the client will speak to the
> nearer server.

I think the answer does compute.  I think the respondent is saying that
his customers (he is probably working at an ISP) use various
implementations of name servers, including w2k dns, whereby he provides
slave name services and the customer is the master (or possibly the
other way around).  However, I didn't read the response as a discussion
of DNS clients running on any platform.

Dave...


> 
> 
[clip...]