DDNS - Question of best practices.
cbuxton at menandmice.com
Wed Jun 4 17:11:38 UTC 2008
The only way that would work is if the "supervisory slave" were
actually master for the zone being dynamically updated. It could still
be slave for all static data.
Remember, a zone is identical between master and slaves. (The format
on disk might be different, but the servers will have the same data in
memory.) There is no way for the slaves to have a different version of
the zone. Therefore, if the "garbage" is part of the zone, then the
primary master for that zone must have it.
As a corollary, slaves cannot process dynamic updates other than to
forward them upstream, in the direction of the primary master.
Is there some reason you don't want your hidden master to contain the
data about student workstations?
Men & Mice
On Jun 4, 2008, at 10:01 AM, Luis Fernando Lacayo wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. My concern is that a hidden master shouldn't be
> touch but for the slaves...
> So I was thinking that the DHCP servers would talk to with what I
> consider a supervisory slave, and he would distribute down to the
> slaves. The Hidden Master does not need to have garbage about the
> students work station, does it?
> So I was thinking that having the supervisory slave would be updated
> the DHCP servers, and he would push the info to the other 3 slaves.
> What are your thoughts.
> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 09:47 -0700, Chris Buxton wrote:
>> Dynamic updates must be processed by the primary master server (your
>> new hidden master, in this case). However, it's possible to set the
>> slaves to forward updates to the master, so that the DHCP server can
>> send updates to the local slave.
>> So, to answer your question, either way will work.
>> Chris Buxton
>> Professional Services
>> Men & Mice
>> On Jun 4, 2008, at 6:45 AM, Luis Fernando Lacayo wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>> First let me state that I am pretty new to DDNS and I am looking
>>> for a
>>> best practice of implementing DDNS.
>>> I have a pretty large network, and I am looking to enable DDNS at
>>> the schools as well as the central office of the Chicago Public
>>> The following scenario best describes my network right now.
>>> I have:
>>> 1 master DNS server
>>> 3 slave DNS servers
>>> The schools use 2 of the the slaves and the central office use the
>>> master and the other slave. Right now all the slaves are updated by
>>> single master.
>>> My plan is to implement a HIDDEN master, which will update the other
>>> This is where I am a little unsure.
>>> Should the DHCP server update the hidden master via DDNS or should I
>>> update the other 4 directly.
>>> Luis Fernando Lacayo
>>> Chicago Public Schools
>>> Senior Unix Administrator
>>> ITS/ UNIX Infrastructure
>>> Office: 773-553-3835
>>> Cell: 773-203-4493
> Luis Fernando Lacayo
> Chicago Public Schools
> Senior Unix Administrator
> ITS/ UNIX Infrastructure
> Office: 773-553-3835
> Cell: 773-203-4493
More information about the bind-users