ixfr problem

Cricket Liu cricket at menandmice.com
Tue Oct 9 21:48:40 UTC 2001

> I'm not sure why you brought up NS records then. I read your comment as
> implying that only nameservers in the NS records ("published"
> servers) were appropriate targets for Dynamic Updates.

Let me rephrase my statement just slightly:

"I would have no qualms with an implementation that, for example, looks up
the zone's NS RRs and then looks to see whether one of those is the
default name server to determine reachability."

I presented that as one possible method of determining which authoritative
server to send dynamic updates to--one that, in fact, uses the resolver's
configuration.  It's certainly not the only one.

> Apparently I haven't been making myself very clear. My understanding of
> Microsoft's vision of the future is that *all* DNS servers are
> for *all* relevant DNS zones. So then it doesn't matter where the update
> and, all other things being equal -- and they *are* equal at that point --
> may as well use the same nameserver which is first in your resolver
> configuration, aka your "preferred nameserver". While I may not agree with
> approach, I can't really say that it clearly violates the RFC, because of
> of that fuzzy language in there about "reachability".

Well, I've never heard anyone from Microsoft present that vision of the


Men & Mice
DNS Software & Services

More information about the bind-users mailing list