Strange problem

Måns Nilsson mansaxel at kthnoc.net
Mon Jun 25 10:46:21 UTC 2007


--On fredag, fredag 22 jun 2007 00.17.25 -0700 Clenna Lumina
<savagebeaste at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Would this be a good scheme, just out of curiosity?
> 
> (I jotted this down and it seems to make sense:
> 
> [Internal/Hidden]
> Master-A:   IPs: 10.0.0.2
>  Slave-A:   IPs: 10.0.0.3                 masters { 10.0.0.2; };
> 
> [External/Public]
> Master-B:   IPs 10.0.0.4, 12.123.100.44   masters { 10.0.0.2; 
> 10.0.0.3; };
>  Slave-B:   IPs 10.0.0.5, 12.123.100.45   masters { 10.0.0.4; 10.0.0.2; 
> 10.0.0.3; };
> 
> 
> If Master-A goes down, Slave-A can (using it's backup zonefile copy) 
> temporarly serve Master-B. Slave-B can still update from Master-B; 
> Both -B's can still serve the world and local network.
> 
> If both Master-A and Slave-A go down, Slave-B can still get data from 
> Master-B; Both -B's can still serve the world and local network.
> 
> If Master-B should go down, Slave-B can still pull from the "-A" 
> servers. Slave-B can still serve the world and local network.
> 
> If both -A's go down and Master-B, Slave-B can still serve to the 
> world/lan using it's backup copy.

Yes. 

> Any flaws or problems here, or something I missed? (I'm asking this for 
> educational benefit, as one never knows if they'll done day need it :)

It is over-engineered, but nothing else. 

-- 
MÃ¥ns Nilsson                     Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204   cell                       KTHNOC
+46 8 790 6518  office                  MN1334-RIPE

NEWARK has been REZONED!!  DES MOINES has been REZONED!!



More information about the bind-users mailing list