A Zone Transfer Question
gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net
Sat Feb 20 21:31:54 UTC 2016
On 02/19/2016 08:04 PM, John Miller wrote:
> In the case of dynamic updates, one NS record might actually be
> better: there's no worrying about update forwarding between slave and
It's been my painful experience that (particularly Windows) clients send
dynamic DNS updates to the MNAME listed in the SOA, /NOT/ necessarily
any of the listed NS. (Unless the MNAME happens to be listed as an NS.)
As such, I don't see any confusion over which of multiple NS dynamic
updates are sent to.
Further, I'd argue that slave NS should be configured to forward updates
to the master (ultimately MNAME).
Grant. . . .
unix || die
More information about the bind-users