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