Slave nameserver question

[Kevin Darcy]

Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <gc0udg$1k6p$1 at sf1.isc.org>, Kevin Darcy <kcd at chrysler.com> 
> wrote:
>
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> Maybe what he's really planning on doing is listing two masters: the 
> real master and itself.  Pointing to the real master causes updates to 
> propagate, pointing to itself prevents expiration.
>   
"the master", singular.

"... there won't be any bandwidth used in zone transfers".

Seems like he's setting up a master zone, but for whatever reason wants 
to call it a slave.

                                                                         
   - Kevin