Slave nameserver question

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

> > 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?) 

On 01.10.08 22:03, Barry Margolin wrote:
> 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.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Does it? I'd expect that expiration status only depends on setting in
named's config, not content of the SOA record.

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
I drive way too fast to worry about cholesterol.