several master ip's for a slave zone

[Alan Clegg]

On 11/5/2011 4:21 AM, kalpesh varyani wrote:
> How does this feature address the risk that data provided by one master
> might get overwritten by another?

The use of the word "masters" in the configuration of a slave zone is a
bit misleading.  Under most circumstances, you list the authoritative
servers, not "multiple masters".

I have long advocated (for clarity sake) that it should be:

slave example.com {
	type slave;
	authoritatives { 192.0.2.12; 203.0.113.53; };
};

instead of:

slave example.com {
	type slave;
	masters { 192.0.2.12; 203.0.113.53; };
};

But that would break lots of configuration files.  :)

AlanC
-- 
alan at clegg.com | aclegg at infoblox.com
          1.919.355.8851

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20111105/c25fab81/attachment.bin>