In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kevin Darcy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Cherney John-CJC030 wrote:
> > Besides being a bad idea from a general design perspective, is it
> > possible to set up a nameserver as a slave for a domain, but have the
> > masters field point to itself? ("I am a slave for this information, and
> > the master is myself.") In thinking about it, it seems like it should be
> > OK. The slave will always be able to contact the master, so the data
> > should never go stale. The serial number is always up to date, so there
> > won't be any bandwidth used in zone transfers. Is there something
> > somewhere that would make this not work? (Something in the code for
> > executing refreshes or parsing the named.conf file?)
> >
> Easy enough to test...
>
> (Tick tock, tick tock...)
>
> Yeah, it works.
>
> But... why? Just define it as a master.
Maybe what he's really planning on doing is listing two masters: the
real master and itself. Pointing to the real master causes updates to
propagate, pointing to itself prevents expiration.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
