why the new complaints about inherited owner?

Mark Andrews marka at isc.org
Tue Nov 25 11:51:11 UTC 2014

In message <1DAC056D-B368-48D0-BC6A-4349AD86FB64 at netconsonance.com>, Jo Rhett writes:
> Googling for information on this log message I can find only the source cod=
> e changes. Why exactly is this bad?
> ov 25 03:07:15 geode named[4173]: domain.include:2: record with inherited o=
> wner (netconsonance.com) immediately after $ORIGIN (netconsonance.com)
> Zone file has the totally bog-standard SOA followed by NS records. Like eve=
> ry record in which multiple RRs are done for the same name, the NS entries =
> are inherited. This is not only bog-standard, but it=92s still shown in the=
>  latest BIND book from O=92Reilly.  So if this is now Bad(tm) can we post s=
> omething about why it is bad, and what the recommended practice is?

Because usually it is a error.  $ORIGIN sets "@" not the current owner name.

$ORIGIN netconsonance.com
	SOA ...
	NS ...

$ORIGIN netconsonance.com
@	SOA ...
@	NS ...

The owner of the SOA record depends on what lies before the $ORIGIN
for the first group.

For the second group the owner of the SOA record is the value of

Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org

More information about the bind-workers mailing list