using $INCLUDE with views
wllarso at swcp.com
Tue Oct 10 21:41:08 UTC 2006
On Oct 10, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Stefan Puiu wrote:
> On 10/10/06, Bill Larson <wllarso at swcp.com> wrote:
>> I've been following this thread and simply tried to replicate what
>> you were running into. In particular, I was looking for an answer to
>> the "no current owner name" message. I simply created a zone file,
>> "db.test", that looks like this:
>> Now, going back to the BIND ARM, there is a note along with the
>> description of the $INCLUDE statement:
>> RFC 1035 specifies that the current origin should be
>> restored after
>> an $INCLUDE,
>> but it is silent on whether the current domain name should
>> also be
>> restored. BIND 9
>> restores both of them. This could be construed as a
>> deviation from
>> RFC 1035, a feature, or both.
>> So, the issue is what is the origin defined as AFTER the include
>> statement. Apparently how BIND is operating, the origin hasn't been
>> defined before the $INCLUDE is performed and so with the $INCLUDE is
>> completed the origin is again undefined. This is the cause of the
>> "no current owner name" message.
> This is only to clarify: the ARM says that the $ORIGIN is defined to
> be the zone name if not otherwise specified:
> When a zone is first read in there is an implicit $ORIGIN <zone-name>
> That's from the same section I quoted in my post earlier today.
> The problem is not the $ORIGIN (the domain appended to any hostnames
> which don't end in a dot (.) in the zone file), but the current domain
> after the $INCLUDE directive, that is, the owner for the NS records -
> that one is undefined.
To not pick and choose the sections to quote, I also included, but
you didn't reference:
> The BIND ARM states this as:
> The origin and the current domain name revert to the values
> they had prior to the $INCLUDE once the file has been read.
The current domain name is undefined after a $INCLUDE statement is
executed at the beginning of the zone file.
Sorry about my confusion between the origin though. After re-reading
my post I will agree with you.
> I agree with the rest of the explanation, though.
More information about the bind-users