multiple internal views not working (requested conf files

[Kevin Darcy]

Alan Clegg wrote:
> Kevin Darcy wrote:
>
>> Views are matched in order, so "!10.x.5.0/24;" is redundant -- 
>> anything in that range would have been matched by the previous view.
>
> But, but by explicitly putting it there, the ordering of the views is 
> no-longer important. "Better safe than sorry".
>
If I were inclined to rearrange views on a whim, then maybe I'd think 
more highly of the value of "view portability".

But the typical view-based config I've ever dealt with had one or more 
views matching specific ranges and/or TSIG keys, followed by an 
"any"-matching view at the end. Such a structure is inherently 
sequential and does not lend itself to rearrangement.

I'm also wary of declaring the same range in multiple match lists (once 
asserted, then negated everywhere else), since that means if the numeric 
value of the range changes, you have multiple places to update, and you 
could miss one.

- Kevin