Single slave zone definition for two view (cache file name problem)

Steven Carr sjcarr at
Wed Mar 18 13:55:21 UTC 2015

On 18 March 2015 at 13:30, Konstantin Stefanov <cstef at> wrote:
> It isn't. But maintaining one file is easier. And having to maintain two
> after five years everything worked fine with one is annoying.

This highlights the need for a test environment, don't apply untested
updates to production systems, it'll help you avoid running into
issues like this where something in the product has changed and then
you're forced to cobble together an ad-hoc solution to "just fix it"

> Not all my zones are identical, but most, and there is quite a bunch of
> them. The problem is that two files for identical zones can't be the
> same as they used to be. They must differ in file names for slave zone
> caches, or have 'in-view' directive. So simply copying does not work,
> otherwise 'include' would work fine.

Not sure whether BIND would detect this or not but what about using a
hard link? Underlying file would be the same but filenames different
(though with the caveat of "these should be read-only master zones, no
DDNS, not a slave zone")


More information about the bind-users mailing list