Moving from "type forward" to "type static-stub"
Oscar Ricardo Silva
osilva at scuff.cc.utexas.edu
Fri Sep 21 16:00:52 UTC 2012
On 09/20/2012 09:35 PM, Chris Buxton wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 5:49 PM, Oscar Ricardo Silva wrote:
>> I have several recursive, caching BIND servers
>> The current servers are configured to forward any queries for our domain straight to our authoritative servers
>> I've been reading about the new zone type: static-stub and believe this may work better for us.
>> If I'm correct, it will send non-recursive queries to the listed servers and will honor delegations. I've tested this configuration in our lab and it all appears to be working.
>> With our configuration, are there any downsides to changing from forward zones to static-stub?
> Type static-stub should work great here. Type stub, which has been around since before I started managing DNS servers (a very long time now), would probably also have worked.
> Chris Buxton
> BlueCat Networks
I've been asked why I don't just make these slave zones. It seems like
a good idea and would reduce the amount of traffic to the authoritative
Any negatives in converting to slave zones from "forward" or
"static-stub"? The authoritative servers send a NOTIFY when records
have changed so the caching servers would refresh their zones.
More information about the bind-users