"Hidden" masters/primary.

Mark_Andrews at isc.org Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Thu Oct 7 15:08:53 UTC 1999


> In article <03a401bf1067$84b69f60$b477a8ce at acmebw.com>,
> Cricket Liu <cricket at acmebw.com> wrote:
> >> If you don't list the primary master in the SOA record, dynamic update
> >> won't work, since it sends the updates to the server in the MNAME field.
> >> If you're using a hidden primary, it should still be safe to list the
> >> hidden primary in the SOA record.  Only the NS records are important in
> >> classifying a server as hidden or not.
> >
> >Actually, this behavior varies with the implementation.  The ISC's
> >res_update() only sends updates to the MNAME server if it also appears
> >in the NS list for the zone.  This is the behavior specified in RFC 2136.
> 
> Are there plans to update the RFC to fix this?  I expect there may be a
> number of sites that want to do dynamic updates to a hidden primary, and
> this specifically precludes it.  This is one instance where I think MS may
> be justified in violating the spec -- it's flat-out wrong.
> 

 	The slaves are permitted to update a stealth master.  Given that
	stealth masters are often only reachable from the slaves and the
	slaves are supposed to be reachable from everywhere, there was a
	deliberate decision to specify the behaviour this way.

	Mark
> -- 
> Barry Margolin, barmar at bbnplanet.com
> GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
> *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
> Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the grou
> p.
> 
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org


More information about the bind-users mailing list