multiple internal views not working (requested conf files
kcd at chrysler.com
Mon Nov 2 23:11:21 UTC 2009
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.
More information about the bind-users