Can we define masters as hostsname?

[Matthew Pounsett]

On 23 May 2018 at 07:37, Blason R <blason16 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> Can we define masters as hostname instead of IP address? I guess its not
> possible but wondering if community can shed come light on this?
>
>
The short answer.. no, you can't do that. The definition for the slave zone
statement's 'masters' option (BIND 9.11 ARM pp 139) is pretty clear that
you can only use IP addresses and named masters lists.  You could fake it
by defining a named master list (pp. 70) but I suspect that isn't going to
do what you want.

I think the rationale for not allowing hostnames there is that you can
easily put yourself in a unresolvable (pardon the pun) situation where your
slave can't reach the master until your slave reaches the master and gets a
copy of a key zone.   I can also see the potential for complication even if
there weren't a catch-22 in the configuration, such as what to do if the
hostname referenced has multiple addresses associated with it; that would
have implications for things like how complex it is to track whether a
master is available or not.  I'm sure there are other complexities I
haven't thought of.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20180523/67569c15/attachment.html>