Primary/Secondary (Was: Master/Slave)

[Ondřej Surý]

Hey,

since you've asked about ISC recommendations and good practice,
we prefer to use the current DNS terminology as defined in RFC 8499[1]
that says:

> Although early DNS RFCs such as [RFC1996] referred to this as a "master",
> the current common usage has shifted to "primary".

and

> Although early DNS RFCs such as [RFC1996] referred to this as a "slave",
> the current common usage has shifted to calling it a "secondary".

The configuration and documentation in BIND 9 has also shifted to use
the up-to-date terminology, so speaking of the best practice, I would
recommend using the current naming of the server roles and current
naming of the configuration options.

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ondrej at isc.org

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8499

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 31. 1. 2025, at 22:03, Karol Nowicki via bind-users <bind-users at lists.isc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Everyone 
> 
> With design where one ISC Bind DNS server is a master for domain example1.com while in same time acts like as Slave for another one lets say example2.com do we breaks any ISC recomendations or good practice ? 
> 
> 
> Wysłane z Yahoo Mail do iPhone
> -- 
> Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list
> 
> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
> 
> 
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users