Slave nameserver question

[Nikolai Lusan]

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 22:31 -0400, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> >> 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.   
> "the master", singular.
> 
> "... there won't be any bandwidth used in zone transfers".
> 
> Seems like he's setting up a master zone, but for whatever reason wants 
> to call it a slave.

I started a reply to this, and while re-reading to clarify what I was
saying decided I was too sleep deprived to actually make it sendable.

I read this as wanting the same named.conf{.local} to have master and
slave entries for the same domain. Initially I did think he might be
wanting to do it off of 2 IP's on the same machine with 2 instances of
bind ... but the rest of the post didn't make sense (and it is still
just easier and smarter to conf just the master and have bind attach to
both IP's). It sounds very much like someone doesn't understand the
concept of master/slave servers and is trying to have "a secondary"
setup to please either a higher up or a registrar.
-- 
Nikolai Lusan <nikolai at lusan.id.au>