Delegation, parenting, and slaves/stubs

[Barry Margolin]

In article <e4sg61$hr7$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
 "Norman P. B. Joseph" <joseph at ctc.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 20:03 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote:
> 
> > > And what difference would there be
> > > between a "slave" zone like this and a "stub" zone like this?
> > 
> > A stub zone automatically copies the subdomain's delegation records from 
> > the masters, but not the whole zone.  But the delegation records won't 
> > be followed when forwarding is enabled -- that's why you have to be a 
> > slave.
> 
> Just to be clear, are you saying that even with a stub zone defined with
> a "null" forwarders list, the delegation won't be followed?  IOW, given
> the environment I described earlier, this won't work for delegation
> parenting:

Oops, you're right.  The null forwarders list will override the global 
forwarders, and cause it to follow the delegations learned via the stub.

> 
> zone "3.160.147.in-addr.arpa" {
> 	type STUB;
> 	file "zones/slave/147.160.3";
> 	masters { list; of; delegated; internal; servers; };
> 	forwarders {};
> };
> 
> but this will:
> 
> zone "3.160.147.in-addr.arpa" {
> 	type SLAVE;
> 	file "zones/slave/147.160.3";
> 	masters { list; of; delegated; internal; servers; };
> 	forwarders {};
> };
> 
> That seems to contradict what I read in the DNS & Bind book (4th ed)
> section on forwarding, which implies that a null forwarders list should
> work the same for master, slave and stub zones.
> 
> -norm

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***