Slave nameserver question

Matus UHLAR - fantomas uhlar at fantomas.sk
Fri Oct 3 09:03:01 UTC 2008


> > On 01.10.08 22:03, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > 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.
> >              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> In article <gc22q7$omh$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
>  Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar at fantomas.sk> wrote:
> > Does it? I'd expect that expiration status only depends on setting in
> > named's config, not content of the SOA record.
> 
On 02.10.08 16:23, Barry Margolin wrote:
> There's no expiration setting in the named.conf.  Expiration depends on 
> the EXPIRE field of the SOA record, and occurs if the slave is unable to 
> query the master for the SOA record for that length of time.  If the 
> master is itself, these SOA queries should always succeed, so the zone 
> won't expire.

but why should named think the zone is master and should not be expires,
when the config clearly says it's slave? I doubt bind would trust SOA that
much...

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759


More information about the bind-users mailing list