intelligent NAMED

[Clenna Lumina]

Kevin Darcy wrote:
> As others have pointed out, you can do this with "view"s, but the
> downside of that approach is that you have to maintain the data of
> each "view" in parallel, and it can get messy and complicated to
> ensure that masters and slaves are transferring zones via the right
> "view".

I believe this can be alleviated somewhat why having a "shared" zone 
file that's $INCLUDE'ed into all the view-specific zone files. That way 
data that needs to be consistent regardless of view doesn't need to be 
maintained redundantly.

-- 
CL