MNAME not a listed NS record

[Ben Croswell]

There is no issue with a configuration like this. It is the very definition
of a stealth master and is a very common configuration. Any DDNS updates
will continue to reach the stealth master via the mname and no resolvers
will find the master via NS records so it won't be queried.
On Jan 16, 2013 3:42 PM, "Dave Warren" <lists at hireahit.com> wrote:

> Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
> isn't listed as a NS record?
>
> The server listed as MNAME will host the zone and is authoritative for the
> zone, but out of latency concerns it isn't ideal to have other resolvers
> querying this server.
>
> Various online DNS diagnostic tools throw warnings, but as far as I can
> tell from the RFCs, this is a valid configuration. Is it valid? Are there
> any operational gotchas to be aware of or can I ignore the "warnings"?
>
> --
> Dave Warren
> http://www.hireahit.com/
> http://ca.linkedin.com/in/**davejwarren<http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/**listinfo/bind-users<https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users>to unsubscribe from this list
>
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/**listinfo/bind-users<https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20130116/29fe782c/attachment.html>