NS record question

Bob Vance bobvance at alumni.caltech.edu
Mon Mar 26 21:08:56 UTC 2001


>Then, tell me, how did you know that the set of masters/slaves were
>identical for both parent and child zones. I did not see that anywhere
>specified.

Well, basically I wasn't thinking deeply enough :|
Apart from the new (to me) issue you brought up about the different
behavior of BIND8 vs BIND9 vis-a-vis NS RRs, in my mind I was thinking
only about the child zone and that the secondary was slave *only* for
this child zone and not also the parent.

IOW, in my in-brain scenario, the secondary would never see a referral
except  specifically for the child-zone for which he was authoritative.

I just read your nice scenario with the 3 servers that you previously
sent (sorry for the delay in reading it -- I had all those other
thoughts and posts  to handle immediately :) and the issues are becoming
more clear to me, now.


-------------------------------------------------
Tks        | <mailto:BVance at sbm.com>
BV         | <mailto:BobVance at alumni.caltech.edu>
Sr. Technical Consultant,  SBM, A Gates/Arrow Co.
Vox 770-623-3430           11455 Lakefield Dr.
Fax 770-623-3429           Duluth, GA 30097-1511
=================================================





-----Original Message-----
From: roy at node10c4d.a2000.nl [mailto:roy at node10c4d.a2000.nl]On Behalf Of
Roy Arends
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 4:23 PM
To: Bob Vance
Cc: bind-users at isc.org
Subject: RE: NS record question


On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Bob Vance wrote:

>
> Oh, thanks, Roy.
> Now, I'm really confused :)
>
> >The master does not send NOTIFY to servers specified by zone-cut NS
> >records.
>
> Well, what NS records *does* it use??

A nameserver sends NOTIFY to its APEX NS RR.

Let me explain APEX NS RR:

The NS RR records with the same name as the SOA RR.

Let me explain zone-cut NS RR:

The NS RR records with a different name as the SOA RR.

> (Of course, I believe that in our context -- same server -- all the NS
> records appear together for the child zone, regardless of where they
> came from).

Thats a "feature" of bind-8.

> >The question was what the problems would be when zone-cut NS
> >records were removed from the zone, when the cutted zone (child zone,
> >delegated zone) resides on the same server.
>
> Right.
> And I think that there is *no* problem, as my other post mentioned.

Sure, fine,

Then, tell me, how did you know that the set of masters/slaves were
identical for both parent and child zones. I did not see that anywhere
specified.

Regards,

Roy Arends
Nominum




More information about the bind-users mailing list