Best Practices for Authoritative Servers

[John Wobus]

This brings to mind a point I am confused about.  What causes bind9
to mark a query-response as authoritative?  Is it sufficient that the
data come from a zone configured in this nameserver to be either
master or slave?  Or, does it matter if there exists an NS record that 
points
at the nameserver itself?  The specific point is whether, you can
run a caching server also that transfers some select zones, yet answer
queries for names in these zones as if they were cached.

I couldn't find a quick answer with google or any of my books.

John

On Jan 31, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Baird, Josh wrote:

> I currently have three authoritative (non-recursive) internal
> nameservers (these servers are listed in the NS RRset for all of my
> internal domains).  I also have several resolving/caching servers which
> hold the slave zones for these authoritative servers.  On these
> resolving servers, the zone definitions only define one of the three
> authoritative servers.  Would it be best to include all three
> authoritative servers in the zone definitions for the slaves?  What
> benefit would I gain?  Is there even a point in having three
> authoritative servers, when only one is listed in the zone definitions
> for the slaves?
>
>
> I appreciate any input.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Josh
>
>
>