FQDNs in masters-list (was: Help: Secondary for...)

Brad Knowles 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 mailing list