Secondary server on primary

Jason McMullen jasonmc at interactivenetsys.com
Thu May 18 17:12:25 UTC 2000


Yes, all of that is set (I just doubled checked :) ) The weird thing is,
when their server died the other night, our primary server wouldn't return
any lookups for their domain whatsoever.  But the *odd* thing is, our own
secondary nameserver (which wouldn't be anything in this case as it would be
a tertiary namserver, and none have it listed) was returning all lookups
just peachy.  This has me scratching my head quite a bit. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph S D Yao [mailto:jsdy at cospo.osis.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 1:12 PM
> To: Jason McMullen
> Cc: comp-protocols-dns-bind at moderators.isc.org
> Subject: Re: Secondary server on primary
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 12:03:28PM -0400, Jason McMullen wrote:
> > Here's something thats got me thinking.  On our primary 
> namserver, have
> > another domain setup as a secondary in our named.boot file. 
>  Does bind
> > actually write a copy of their zone file somewhere?  We 
> listed in the
> > named.boot file that it would be something like this:
> > 
> > secondary        domain.com        0.0.0.0        
> secondary/db.domain.com
> > 
> > Now it *should* write a copy of their db file in the 
> /etc/namedb/secondary
> > directory, but it is not.  Any suggestions?
> 
> I remember noticing the same thing once, but I'm not sure how I fixed
> it.  Is the master listing the slave as a name server?  Can 
> you resolve
> info from domain.com on the slave server?  Is the "secondary" 
> directory
> writable by the userid under which 'named' is running?  Is it spelled
> correctly???  ;-)
> 
> -- 
> Joe Yao				jsdy at cospo.osis.gov - 
> Joseph S. D. Yao
> COSPO/OSIS Computer Support					EMT-B
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> This message is not an official statement of COSPO policies.
> 



More information about the bind-users mailing list