FW: NOTIFY-triggered Auto-slaving

Kevin Darcy kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Fri Oct 4 01:48:26 UTC 2002

David Botham wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: bert hubert [mailto:ahu at ds9a.nl]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 3:12 PM
> > To: David Botham
> > Cc: bind-users at isc.org
> > Subject: Re: FW: NOTIFY-triggered Auto-slaving
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 10:40:43AM -0400, David Botham wrote:
> >
> > > Primary Master sends "ASLAVE" packet to the slave(s).  Here is the
> > > packet breakdown:
> >
> > David,
> >
> > PowerDNS already implements something like this called 'supermaster':
> >
> > http://doc.powerdns.com/slave.html#SUPERMASTER
> >
> > PowerDNS however is non-bind, but our program may interest you
> > nonetheless.
> There are many proprietary implementations of dns, some bind based and
> some not, that perform these tasks.  This list being the BIND list,
> proprietary implementations are not "on topic".  I am seeing if there is
> any traction for developing a standards based protocol for the masses...

          To be perfectly honest, I think the things most likely to fly
here, in descending order, are:

1. not touching the protocol and just enhancing implementation-specific
handling of NOTIFY or some other protocol feature (as I have proposed)
2. overloading an existing extension like NOTIFY (as was considered -- and
rejected -- when NOTIFY was being developed).
3. specifying a brand-new extension (as you are proposing, if I interpret
you correctly).

It's not that I have come to a final decision of whether a protocol change
and/or a new extension is ultimately The Right Way to implement
auto-slaving, it's just that I doubt any new non-DNSSEC protocol-change
proposal will ever make it out of the Working Group, given the current
membership thereof and their predilections. Therefore I choose the path I
view as most likely to succeed.

- Kevin

More information about the bind-users mailing list