In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kevin Darcy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> "the master", singular.
>
> "... there won't be any bandwidth used in zone transfers".
>
> Seems like he's setting up a master zone, but for whatever reason wants
> to call it a slave.
For the purposes of his question, he was only asking about this master.
That doesn't mean he doesn't plan to do something different in actual
practice.
Well, maybe he'll come back and tell us.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
