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

/dev/rob0 rob0 at
Wed Mar 18 14:41:09 UTC 2015

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:48:40AM +0300, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
> I see why it may lead to problems.
> But in fact the configuration with only one writable file 
> referenced several times is suported now. If I write:
> view "view1" {
> 	zone "" {
> 		masters {IP;};
> 		file "slave/";
> 	};
> };
> view "view2" {
> 	zone "" {
> 		in-view "view1";
> 	};
> };
> then both views will refernce ther same writable file, won't they?


> Or am I missing something about "in-view" directive?

Perhaps.  The view2 reads zone data from view1, which in turn reads 
data from the file (and its journal.)  Notifies from the master are 
directed to view1, which does the IXFR or AXFR and writes the 
journal.  There is no shared access to a journal.

> And if I'm right, the only question is how to simplify the 
> configuration so not to have two definitions in two files for
> every slave zone which is shared between views.

I can think of two possible ways to do what you want, each using 
multiple, separate files for each zone (one file/journal per view.)  
I don't believe either way exists right now, but perhaps one of these 
ideas would make a reasonable feature request.

The first way would be if a view could have its own "directory" 
option set.  Then the relative paths in your example above would 
point to different directories.  The ARM is not explicit as to 
whether or not this is possible, but some simple experimentation 
would quickly determine the answer.

The second way definitely does NOT exist, and that would be to have 
some kind of variable in the named.conf syntax to refer to the name 
of the current view.
  Offlist GMX mail is seen only if "/dev/rob0" is in the Subject:

More information about the bind-users mailing list