Strange problem

[Clenna Lumina]

Måns Nilsson wrote:
> --On fredag, fredag 22 jun 2007 00.17.25 -0700 Clenna Lumina
> <savagebeaste at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Would this be a good scheme, just out of curiosity?
>>
>> (I jotted this down and it seems to make sense:
>>
>> [Internal/Hidden]
>> Master-A:   IPs: 10.0.0.2
>>  Slave-A:   IPs: 10.0.0.3                 masters { 10.0.0.2; };
>>
>> [External/Public]
>> Master-B:   IPs 10.0.0.4, 12.123.100.44   masters { 10.0.0.2;
>> 10.0.0.3; };
>>  Slave-B:   IPs 10.0.0.5, 12.123.100.45   masters { 10.0.0.4;
>> 10.0.0.2;
>> 10.0.0.3; };
>>
>>
>> If Master-A goes down, Slave-A can (using it's backup zonefile copy)
>> temporarly serve Master-B. Slave-B can still update from Master-B;
>> Both -B's can still serve the world and local network.
>>
>> If both Master-A and Slave-A go down, Slave-B can still get data from
>> Master-B; Both -B's can still serve the world and local network.
>>
>> If Master-B should go down, Slave-B can still pull from the "-A"
>> servers. Slave-B can still serve the world and local network.
>>
>> If both -A's go down and Master-B, Slave-B can still serve to the
>> world/lan using it's backup copy.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Any flaws or problems here, or something I missed? (I'm asking this
>> for educational benefit, as one never knows if they'll done day need
>> it :)
>
> It is over-engineered, but nothing else.

Is there a beter way to do it? The scenario I posed was just something I 
jotted down on the fly.

-- 
CL