In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Cherney John-CJC030" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You have all been very helpful in answering my crazy questions. It would > be wrong of me to leave you hanging. > > Barry, you're on the right track. After the nameserver comes up, it will > be told who the master is. In the meantime, though, while it is coming > up, it must be a slave, so it has to have a masters line. Putting an So you're going to modify the named.conf to replace the self-master with the real master? Why don't you just make it a master server in the initial configuration, and then rewite it to slave after it comes up? > unreachable address there didn't seem like a good idea. Putting its own > IP address seems like it should work, but I didn't know if there was > something in the RFCs that disallowed that, or something in the code > that would protect itself from a situation like that. > > Kevin, thank you for testing that. I wasn't going to get a chance to > test that until next week sometime. I will take an extra long coffee > break next week in your honor. If you start to get the jitters next > Wednesday afternoon, that will be why. :) > > Thanks! > jwc > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Barry Margolin > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Slave nameserver question > > 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 *** -- Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
