ixfr problem

Cricket Liu cricket at menandmice.com
Tue Oct 9 19:56:00 UTC 2001

> > The RFC says a client can try *the authoritative name servers for the
> > it's
> > updating* in order of reachability, not just any old name server.  I
have no
> > qualms with an implementation that looks up the zone's NS RRs and then
> > looks to see whether one of those is the resolver's default name server
> > determine reachability.
> Not to pick nits, but the RFC never actually specifies that only
> *published* authoritative nameservers can be used. It only says
> "authoritative". So it would seem perfectly legitimate to send an update
to a
> stealth slave or a "hidden master".

You're not picking nits with me, because I never said that the update had to
be sent to a published authoritative name server.  In fact, Microsoft's
routines send updates to the name server listed in the MNAME field
regardless of whether that name server also appears in an NS record.

This is all irrelevant to the notion of sending the update to the resolver's
first name server, though, since the fact that a name server is listed in
resolver's configuration says nothing about what zones it's authoritative


Men & Mice
DNS Software & Services

More information about the bind-users mailing list