On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 04:24:24PM -0400, Novosielski, Ryan wrote: ... > One followup question to this: are there any limits to how the SOA > section is handled in this case? Can the SOA record be in the > $INCLUDE'd file, or does it have to be in the defined zone files > (which then would mean maintaining I guess two serial numbers)? I was > originally thinking that in that case, whenever changes are made to > the zonename.shared file, all that was really needed to be updated was > the "for-the-many" zone but I believe then the "for-the-few" machines > would begin to see an increasingly out of date version of the shared file.
The bit stream that the computer "sees" is just what you would see if you removed the $INCLUDE line and stuck all the bytes from the $INCLUDE'd there instead. You can't tell what was $INCUDE'd and what was not. Every other line might have been $INCLUDE'd from a different file, if you wanted to be a bit crazy, and the computer would never care. BUT you may ONLY have one SOA record per zone. That's not a per-file thing, that's a per-zone thing. Use RCS archiving and $Version:$ strings in comments [or TXT records] if you want to keep track of file version numbers. Or something more recent, if you want. Just as a logistical thing, the SOA record should be in the zone file that $INCLUDEs the rest of the information, anmd no SOA record in the latter. -- /*********************************************************************\ ** ** Joe Yao [email protected] - Joseph S. D. Yao ** \*********************************************************************/ _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
