Multiple masters expected behavior?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <mailman.65.1279835965.15649.bind-users at lists.isc.org>,
 Peter Laws <plaws at ou.edu> wrote:

> I have multiple interfaces on my master and multiple interfaces on most of 
> my slaves.
> 
> I've got one of the slaves set up so that its masters {}; statement has two 
> of the master's interfaces in it.  The preferred is first, with the 
> non-preferred second.  I was contemplating using this on all slaves to 
> guard against a network path failure.
> 
> Note that I also have both of the slave's interfaces in the also-notify 
> statement on the master (it's an unpublished slave).
> 
> I would have thought that BIND would always hit the first and never the 
> second.  That doesn't seem to be the case however.  In fact, in a few cases 
> I've seen it seems to use both, though not round-robinning that I can see 
> from the logs.
> 
> Is that expected behavior?

Yes.  What if the first server stops getting updates, but the second one 
does and has a higher serial number?  Don't you want the slaves to check 
the SOA record on it to pick up these changes?

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