<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013-06-04 06:42, Alan Shackelford
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0CAFEE527530B9478FCB0DE43662417B6E8D733A@JHEMTEBEX6.win.ad.jhu.edu"
type="cite"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">We
have 2843 authoritative zones. We run a split brain DNS. The new
hospitals and other entities need to see our internal zone view
once they have “joined”. So I have them forward queries during
the early stages of the merger, until I can get control of their
DNS and make appropriate changes. There are fatherhood issues
and all manner of ego problems involved in absorbing someone
else’s DNS. This step provides a workable solution in the very
first stages. Then I make them slaves, with a reasonable expire
time, to give them a copy of the data locally.</span></blockquote>
<br>
To me, it sounds like changing these steps by moving directly to
using slave zones would fix the issue, no? Is there any particular
need to start with forwarding rather slaving right from the start?<br>
<br>
I realize there are egos, but "Connect our network to yours"
includes things like routing and DNS. You're not taking over their
territory just yet, just adding yours to theirs.<br>
<br>
Politics aside, it solves the technical issues without butchering
DNS or adding excessive unreliability.<br>
<br>
But then I just hate forwards. Burned 1000x times, lesson learned :)<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dave Warren
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.hireahit.com/">http://www.hireahit.com/</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren">http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>