FQDNs in masters-list (was: Help: Secondary for...)
brad.knowles at skynet.be
Wed Mar 7 10:15:28 UTC 2001
At 4:28 AM +0000 3/7/01, Jim Reid wrote:
> Indeed. And it should remain there IMHO. For this stealth master on a
> random IP address - what a bizarre concept! - there are simpler ways
> to deal with the problem. These have the advantage of not "extending"
> the DNS protocol or an implementation.
Oh, I agree with you. I was just pointing out that the problem
that people are trying to solve here is outside the scope of the DNS
protocol, and it's not just a trivial matter to "fix" BIND to solve
this issue the way they want to solve it.
IMO, all this crap about putting servers on dynamic IP addresses
but then expecting everything in the Universe to follow them around
just exactly as if they had permanent IP addresses is just complete
bullshit. If you're going to go the dynamic IP address route, there
are simply some things that you have to give up.
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at skynet.be>
More information about the bind-users