two primary's

Niall O'Reilly Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie
Wed Mar 5 18:01:50 UTC 2008


On 5 Mar 2008, at 16:09, Chris Buxton wrote:

> On Mar 5, 2008, at 3:06 AM, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>> 	The terms 'primary' and 'secondary' (or better, 'fallback', since
>> 	there may even be more than two) are still useful when describing
>> 	the set of resolver servers which provide name resolution for each
>> 	client (running only a stub resolver) _within a network_.  IMHO,
>> 	this is the only sensible use of these terms.
>
> Actually, outside of BIND's nomenclature, the correct term for the
> authoritative server that gets its zone entirely from local data,
> rather than from another authoritative server, is "primary master".

	We're not contradicting each other.  "Sensible" and "actually [...]
	correct" are not necessarily the same.  8-)

>> The answer in this
>> 	case is 'NO', unless local anycast or a clever stub resolver is in
>> 	use: only one can be first in the list (/etc/resolv.conf or
>> whatever).
>
>
> But the ordering can be dynamically changed by the stub resolver,
> depending on version.

	Of course.  That's what I meant by "clever stub resolver".

	/Niall





More information about the bind-users mailing list