On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 08:28:06PM -0800, Paul B. Henson wrote: > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, [iso-2022-jp] JINMEI Tatuya / ����� wrote: > > > So, you at least need to fix one on-memory zone image that can be > > dynamically updated. You'll then have to configure the other view where > > the "shared" zone is a secondary of the real dynamic zone in the other > > view, or a forward zone for which all queries to be forwarded to the real > > zone. (I've not tried this configuration by myself, so I'm not 100% sure > > if this can implement what you need). > > It's making my brain hurt ;), but I kind of see what you're suggesting. A > single server both master and secondary for the same zone in different > views. That should work for the "both the same" part. Then if I configure > the secondary zone to forward updates to the primary zone both views would > be the same and clients in either view could update. I guess the primary > zone would have to be in the view in which the IP of the actual server > resides, so the forwarded update from the server to itself ( 8-/, will that > even work?) hits the primary. > > I think it's kind of a deficiency of bind not to support this type of > configuration more cleanly. It would be nice if you could have both split > view zones and standalone zones on the same server. Perhaps a feature > request :)? > > Thanks for the suggestion, I'll play with it and see what happens. >
Btw setup with slave zone in second view is described in FAQ as well: - https://www.isc.org/faq/bind - Configuration and Setup Questions -> "How do I share a dynamic zone between multiple views?" Adam -- Adam Tkac, Red Hat, Inc.
_______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
