Understood, but what I'm asking about is that the slave does not appear to be losing contact with the first-listed master. In fact, from the logs, it appears to be flipping back and forth (though not round-robinning).
Someone else asked, essentially, "why?" ... The network paths are diverse to the different interfaces so, while I'm not protecting against failure of the master, I am protecting against network path failure. -- Peter Laws / N5UWY National Weather Center / Network Operations Center / Web University of Oklahoma Information Technology [email protected] ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Barry Margolin [[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 07:09 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Multiple masters expected behavior? In article <[email protected]>, Peter Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/22/10 19:57, Barry Margolin wrote: > > In article<[email protected]>, > > Peter Laws<[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I have multiple interfaces on my master and multiple interfaces on most of > >> my slaves. > >> > > > >> > >> 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? > > Except that the 2 "masters" are simply different interfaces on the same > master ... so the serial number *better* always be the same! That's true in *your* case. But BIND was designed to handle the more general case, where the masters can be different machines. -- 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 _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
