In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Laws <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have multiple interfaces on my master and multiple interfaces on most of
> my slaves.
>
> I've got one of the slaves set up so that its masters {}; statement has two
> of the master's interfaces in it. The preferred is first, with the
> non-preferred second. I was contemplating using this on all slaves to
> guard against a network path failure.
>
> Note that I also have both of the slave's interfaces in the also-notify
> statement on the master (it's an unpublished slave).
>
> I would have thought that BIND would always hit the first and never the
> second. That doesn't seem to be the case however. In fact, in a few cases
> I've seen it seems to use both, though not round-robinning that I can see
> from the logs.
>
> Is that expected behavior?
Yes. What if the first server stops getting updates, but the second one
does and has a higher serial number? Don't you want the slaves to check
the SOA record on it to pick up these changes?
--
Barry Margolin, [email protected]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
_______________________________________________
bind-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
