Slave nameserver question

[Kevin Darcy]

Cherney John-CJC030 wrote:
> Besides being a bad idea from a general design perspective, is it
> possible to set up a nameserver as a slave for a domain, but have the
> masters field point to itself? ("I am a slave for this information, and
> the master is myself.") In thinking about it, it seems like it should be
> OK. The slave will always be able to contact the master, so the data
> should never go stale. The serial number is always up to date, so there
> won't be any bandwidth used in zone transfers. Is there something
> somewhere that would make this not work? (Something in the code for
> executing refreshes or parsing the named.conf file?) 
>   
Easy enough to test...

(Tick tock, tick tock...)

Yeah, it works.

But... why? Just define it as a master.

                                                                         
- Kevin