Slave nameserver question

[Barry Margolin]

In article <gc0udg$1k6p$1 at sf1.isc.org>, Kevin Darcy <kcd at chrysler.com> 
wrote:

> Cherney John-CJC030 wrote:
> > Besides being a bad idea from a general design perspective, is it
> > possible to set up a nameserver as a slave for a domain, but have the
> > masters field point to itself? ("I am a slave for this information, and
> > the master is myself.") In thinking about it, it seems like it should be
> > OK. The slave will always be able to contact the master, so the data
> > should never go stale. The serial number is always up to date, so there
> > won't be any bandwidth used in zone transfers. Is there something
> > somewhere that would make this not work? (Something in the code for
> > executing refreshes or parsing the named.conf file?) 
> >   
> Easy enough to test...
> 
> (Tick tock, tick tock...)
> 
> Yeah, it works.
> 
> But... why? Just define it as a master.

Maybe what he's really planning on doing is listing two masters: the 
real master and itself.  Pointing to the real master causes updates to 
propagate, pointing to itself prevents expiration.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***