recursion vs allow-recursion

[Chris Thompson]

On Mar 8 2006, Smith, William E. (Bill), Jr. wrote:

[...]
>As for the second question, I believe the answer is no -- you simply
>don't include the recursion option in your named.conf, thus assuming the
>default.  If you enable it to no, I believe that trumps anything in
>allow-recursion.

Experiment indicates that is right, but the ARM isn't all that clear
on the subject.

Since BIND 9.2.4 or 9.3.0 (item 1533 in the change log), BIND issues a 
warning if both "recursion no" and "allow-recursion ..." are specified; 
e.g.

Mar  8 19:08:16 limpkin.csi.cam.ac.uk named[212]: [ID 866145 daemon.warning]
both "recursion no;" and "allow-recursion" active

Of course, that might be suppressed depending on logging options.
named-checkconf doesn't seem to care about this combination.

-- 
Chris Thompson
Email: cet1 at cam.ac.uk