Make aliases that don't transfer?

[Jeff Lightner]

Either I didn't understand your last line or I didn't explain the setup
here correctly.   There is only one zone file for the aliases.  It
doesn't matter if any of the subsequent transfers are OK from that
standpoint because it doesn't create multiple zone files even though it
shows multiple transfers.  It is a single zone file and that is only
that single zone file that transfers even if it transfers it multiple
times.

Perhaps by RFC it "should" be individual zone files.   However since it
has been running this way for a few years it's obvious that there no
"must" to it.  I'm not truly averse to creating multiple zone files if
that is truly required - as noted though I'd like to know (other than
not meeting RFCs) what the downside to having it this way is.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark_Andrews at isc.org [mailto:Mark_Andrews at isc.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:09 AM
To: Jeff Lightner
Cc: Kevin Darcy; bind-users at isc.org
Subject: Re: Make aliases that don't transfer? 


> It's "a hack" - ok I'll buy that though I inherited the setup.  Is it
a
> bad idea though?  Should I really make separate zone files for every
> domain when all we really use is a single web site to service them
all?
> 
> 
> We have a single domain for email and all other purposes.   It is only
> because we have multiple business entities that we use separate domain
> names (essentially to insure people looking for us find our main web
> site).  What is the downside to using such "a hack"?   
> 
> I can live with the multiple zone transfers (especially given that if
I
> DID separate into individual zone files I'd still have multiple zone
> transfers) but was just curious if there was a way to configure named
> not to transfer a given zone file.   Doing rsync wouldn't turn off
zone
> transfers.  I'd still want my main zone files (the unaliased ones) to
> transfer.   Are you implying it is all or nothing?  If so why do I
need
> to configure each zone?

	The zone declaration tells name what namespaces it is serving.
	It also set the $ORIGIN when the master file is read in.  This
	allows @ to be expanded appropriately for each zone.

	Note.  You shouldn't use the same file for the slaves.  Each
file
	*must* be unique.  When named re-starts there is not way to make
	sure the file contents match the zone.
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org] On
> Behalf Of Kevin Darcy
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:08 PM
> To: bind-users at isc.org
> Subject: Re: Make aliases that don't transfer?
> 
> Always remember that the use of a single file as the source data for 
> multiple zones is a *hack*. named loads that data as separate zones,
and
> 
> that's the way they are viewed in protocol terms, including zone 
> transfers -- as separate zones. As John Wobus pointed out, if you want

> to treat *files* as *files* instead of *zones*, you could use an 
> out-of-band mechanism, such as rsync, to replicate your data. Some 
> caveats of doing things that way:
> 1) If you care about security at all, you'd want to set up a trust 
> relationship so that no-one can spoof the data,
> 2) You might need to open up additional ports in your firewall(s), if
> any,
> 3) You'd need some way of getting the "slave" nameservers (defined as 
> "master" for the zone(s) in question) to reload/refresh the data 
> whenever it changes since, unlike with AXFR/IXFR, this is not
automatic.
> 
>  
> 
>                            - Kevin
> 
> Jeff Lightner wrote:
> > We have multiple domains that are aliased to our main domain.   This
> > works fine.
> > I've noticed on doing zone updates and transfers from master to
slave
> > that it essentially transfers the alias zone file for EACH aliased
> > domain.   This seems unnecessary since the zone file is a single one
> for
> > all these domains so it seems the transfer for the first alias
should
> be
> > sufficient.   I was curious how I would insure it only transferred
> once.
> > Is there a type other than "master" or "slave" or should I just take
> out
> > the "allow transfer" line?   I don't want to delete the entry
entirely
> > from the slave for obvious reasons.
> >
> > Example from my master:
> > zone "4waters.com" {
> >         type master;
> >         file "watercom-aliases";
> >         allow-transfer { watercom; };
> > };
> >
> > >From my slave:
> > zone "4waters.com" {
> >         type slave;
> >         file "watercom-aliases";
> >         masters { 10.0.21.21; };
> >         allow-transfer { watercom; };
> > };
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> 
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at isc.org