Non-local DNS resolution question

[Barry Margolin]

In article <caletq$r9$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
 Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:

> I think what you're forgetting (or overlooking) is the "stub" option. 
> This gives most of the benefits of slaving without the zone-transfer 
> overhead

Has the implementation of stub zones changed?  When I first looked at it 
(back in BIND 4 days), it performed a zone transfer, but ignored 
everything but the SOA and NS records.  So the zone-transfer overhead 
was the same.  I'm also not sure that it looked at nested NS records 
within the zone; I thought it only cared about the ones at the zone apex.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***