DDNS - Question of best practices.

John Hascall john at iastate.edu
Wed Jun 4 17:29:29 UTC 2008



One thing which may be worth stating explicitly is that
master-vs-slave is a per-zone concept.  If you can separate
them into their own zone, you can master your student dns
names on a system other than where you master your dns names.

John

> 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?
> 
> Chris Buxton
> Professional Services
> Men & Mice
> 
> On Jun 4, 2008, at 10:01 AM, Luis Fernando Lacayo wrote:
> 
> > Chris,
> >
> > 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  
> > by
> > the DHCP servers, and he would push the info to the other 3 slaves.
> >
> > What are your thoughts.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Luis
> > 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  
> >>> all
> >>> the schools as well as the central office of the Chicago Public  
> >>> School
> >>> system.
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>> the
> >>> single master.
> >>>
> >>> My plan is to implement a HIDDEN master, which will update the other
> >>> 4.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Luis
> >>> -- 
> >>> 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 mailing list