Some sub domains but not all

[Kevin Darcy]

Brian Huntley wrote:

> I need to configure a slave name server for a division of a company.
> There are
> many zones within the company that I'd prefer not to have to worry
> about, but
> some I need. For example, I want to have company.com and
> division1.company.com,
> but not division2.company.com. Instead, queries about division2 should
> be handed
> off to my forwarder.
>
> How do I do this?
>
> At present, if I leave division2.company.com out of my named.conf file
> and don't
> load that zone, then queries fail with a 'non-existant host/domain'
> message.

You could use zones of type "forward", type "slave" or type "stub" for
this. "Forward" zones tend to have scalability problems because they put
all of the name-resolution burden on the forwarders (thus concentrating
the load on a few servers instead of spreading it out). "Stub" zones
don't have the same scalability problems, but incur a slight
stub-transfer overhead. Slave zones, of course, provide the most
redundancy and the fastest query performance, but only at the cost of a
potentially-large zone-transfer overhead. Slave zones also require that
the master servers permit zone transfers to your nameserver(s).

Pick whichever meets your requirements best. Note that per-zone
forwarding requires BIND 8.2.3 (that's the earliest *secure* BIND version
which supports the feature). If you opt for "stub" or "slave", then you
may wish to specify "forwarders { };" in each zone definition to inhibit
forwarding for subzones. This also requires BIND 8.2.3. Otherwise, you
have to maintain zone definitions for all of the subzones. Defining all
of the subzones is also required if you opt for "type forward" zones and
your (so-called) "forwarders" don't support recursion.

> Bind 8.x.x solutions are preferable, but I'll certainly look at any
> 4.9.3 or
> above ideas.

Huh? Do you think BIND 4 has *more* relevant features than BIND 8???


- Kevin