primary & secondary dns-servers

[Mark_Andrews at isc.org]

> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:44:14 +0000, Mark_Andrew wrote:
> 
> > 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> I have 2 nameservers:
> >> ns1.sadjieds-network.com (80.126.40.182) (in network: 192.168.0.1) <-- my 
> pc
> >> ns2.sadjieds-network.com (81.23.237.234) (not in network) <-- my dedicated
> >> server
> >> 
> >> When I put a line in to my /var/named/sadjieds-network.com.hosts or
> >> /etc/named.conf, how can it be automaticaly updated on
> >> ns2.sadjieds-network.com ??
> > 
> > 	Well when you change the contents of
> > 	/var/named/sadjieds-network.com.hosts you should also be updating
> > 	the serial number.  When the zone is reloaded the nameserver will
> > 	send out a NOTIFY to ns2.sadjieds-network.com which will trigger
> > 	a refresh probe.  If the NOTIFY is lost then ns2.sadjieds-network.com
> > 	will perform a refresh probe based on the timers in the SOA record.
> > 
> > 	If you are adding a zone you need to update both named.confs.
> >  
> > 	Mark
> 
> i have two servers (ns1 and ns2) both running DHCP and BIND. the purpose
> being failover and dynamic DNS (forward and reverse). As of right now, i
> have ns2 as the slave which correctly gets NOTIFY-ed of update to the
> appropriate zones and so both the name servers are in sync. the only way
> that i could figure out to configure the DHCP was to make it make update
> to the primary name server (ns1) with the following configuration:
> zone mydomain.com.{
> 	primary ns1;
> 	key XYZ;
> }
> on both ns1 and ns2. ie., both the DHCP servers update BIND on ns1 which
> then notifies BIND on ns2. but now i have a single point of failure. if
> BIND on ns1 dies, neither DHCP servers can make updates. is there a way to
> have DHCP make update to either server (BIND on ns1 and ns2)? is there any
> other way for me to get rid of this single point of failure?

	There is no standards way to do this.

	MS tried to do this with AD and it really has not worked
	well.  Merging changed databases without manual intervention
	is a difficult problem that has never been completely solved.

	MS tried to work around this by having the clients continually
	re-add themselves and by having the nameserver remove records
	added by UPDATE when they have not been refreshed..
 
	Mark
> thanks,
> Anoop
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews at isc.org