Can we define masters as hostsname?

[Blason R]

Hey,

Thanks a lot for your crisp and short answer!!

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Matthew Pounsett <matt at conundrum.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 23 May 2018 at 07:37, Blason R <blason16 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> Can we define masters as hostname instead of IP address? I guess its not
>> possible but wondering if community can shed come light on this?
>>
>>
> The short answer.. no, you can't do that. The definition for the slave
> zone statement's 'masters' option (BIND 9.11 ARM pp 139) is pretty clear
> that you can only use IP addresses and named masters lists.  You could fake
> it by defining a named master list (pp. 70) but I suspect that isn't going
> to do what you want.
>
> I think the rationale for not allowing hostnames there is that you can
> easily put yourself in a unresolvable (pardon the pun) situation where your
> slave can't reach the master until your slave reaches the master and gets a
> copy of a key zone.   I can also see the potential for complication even if
> there weren't a catch-22 in the configuration, such as what to do if the
> hostname referenced has multiple addresses associated with it; that would
> have implications for things like how complex it is to track whether a
> master is available or not.  I'm sure there are other complexities I
> haven't thought of.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20180523/84d68129/attachment.html>