single class B zone vs multiple class C zone

[Kevin Darcy]

My inclination would be to convert everything over to use Dynamic Update, even the nightly
database-synchronization process (you'd have convert it to only make incremental updates, of course). You
might even consider ditching the external database altogether and making the static-record updates in
realtime using Dynamic Update. It's not terribly difficult to put a web frontend on a Dynamic Update
backend.


- Kevin

Hannah O Day wrote:

> Yes, if all RR in the zones are dynamic, I wouldn't care....but all the
> zones contain some static records.  My static name server is authoritative
> for the entire class B zone.  My dynamic domain is a subdomain.  Since we
> do everything on the class C subnet basis, there are both static and
> dynamic ip address assignment for each subnet.  I had to delegate the
> entire class C to the dynamic server, even though the static records are
> actually in the static class B zone.  Actually the static records have to
> be placed in both the dynamic server and the static server...It's quite a
> mass...I know-)...
>
> I'm trying to merge the dynamic and static into one dynamic environment.  I
> will still have large number of static records since all critical servers
> and printers will stay static.  My design right now is to have one master
> server which accepts dhcp updates, and two slaves (these two slaves are
> responsible for answering queries.  The master ddns server will be pretty
> much invisible to the users).  I also have a database that maintains all
> the static records and generates a forward and reverse zone each night.
> Now where would be a better place to place the static records?  If on the
> master ddns server,  each night when the static records get updated, I'll
> have to pick out the dynamic records and may have to stop the named daemon
> to do so.  This certainly will affect end users.  If place on the two
> slaves, all I need to do is to make sure the zone transfer isn't happening
> at the time I need to update the static records.  I can pick out either the
> static records or the dynamic records and keep the same serial.  That way
> after the zone has changed, the transfer should happen as usual.  Is this
> correct?  Am I missing anything?
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
> Hannah Day
>
>
>                     Kevin Darcy
>                     <kcd at daimlerchr       To:     bind-users at isc.org
>                     ysler.com>            cc:
>                     Sent by:              Subject:     Re: single class B zone vs multiple class C zone
>                     bind-users-boun
>                     ce at isc.org
>
>
>                     05/25/01 05:18
>                     PM
>
>
>
> Yes, you may run into performance issues, since the zone will be larger and
> probably change more frequently. This will greatly increase your
> zone-transfer
> overhead. On the other hand, it may reduce your serial-number-query
> overhead,
> since there are now less zones for the slave to check. But the
> serial-number-query overhead is usually a small fraction of the
> zone-transfer
> overhead, so you'll probably lose more than you'll gain here,
> performance-wise.
>
> Why do you care to consolidate all of those reverse zones? If you're
> maintaining the data in those zones automatically via Dynamic Update from
> your
> DHCP server, then it shouldn't really matter whether they are separate
> zones
> or all one zone.
>
> - Kevin
>
> Hannah O Day wrote:
>
> > I have both dhcp and ddns servers (BIND4.93) that run on Aix boxes.  I
> have
> > been config all reverse zones on the per class C subnet basis.  I'm now
> > upgrade the server to BIND8.2.3.  I want to config the reverse with only
> > one class B instead of many class Cs.  Could anyone tell me if this will
> > cause any performance issues since the updates will now happen to the
> > entire class B instead of class c?