Correlation between NOTIFY-Source and AXFR-Source

[Grant Taylor]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for explaining.

On 3/10/23 12:21 AM, Paul Stead wrote:
> Imagine that 1.1.1.1 has lost network connectivity recently. A notify 
> comes from 2.2.2.2 - if I understand correctly Bind will try 1.1.1.1 
> first, time out and then try 2.2.2.2 - even though we know given the 
> situation that 2.2.2.2 has the latest copy of the zone we want.

I guess what I don't understand is why it's a problem for BIND to follow 
the configuration that's on the system where it's running.

N.B. I am quite certain that I've sent notifications from a system that 
wasn't a DNS server before.  I don't remember if it was dig or something 
else.

I only see a loose suggestion that BIND can do a zone transfer from the 
system that it received notifications from.

I could see having a hierarchy with multiple public secondaries which 
transfer from the hidden private mname as well as multiple public 
tertiaries which transfer from the secondaries and configuring the 
hidden private mname to send notifications to all servers.

Perhaps the larger spirit of this thread is if that association can be 
made hard or not.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4017 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20230311/0846fe88/attachment.bin>