[dns-wg] rev delegation robot and selection of NS to pull zone from
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] rev delegation robot and selection of NS to pull zone from
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] rev delegation robot and selection of NS to pull zone from
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Fri Nov 21 01:29:15 CET 2008
the root ops folks have used that term for nearly a decade... its much cleaner/nicer than the baggage of other, more highly charged words. --bill On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:48:25AM -0800, Barbara Roseman wrote: > A new term, without the baggage of "hidden" or "stealth" is "distribution master". > > -Barb > > > On 11/20/08 10:44 AM, "Mohsen Souissi" <mohsen.souissi at nic.fr> wrote: > > Wilfried, > > Some call it "hidden master", others call it "hidden primary" and > others call it "stealth master"... > > This URL may help and I'm sure there is much more thorough source of > documentation: http://www.dns.net/dnsrd/servers/ > > (just look up "hidden master" in the web page...) > > You may also visit this page: > https://www.isc.org/software/bind/documentation/arm95 > > I think as for the XFR config, amha, the slave run by NCC should be > configured to feed from the other NS listed (and run on-site). > > Hope that helps, > > Mohsen. > > On 20 Nov, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > | Another question regarding v6 reverse delegation, but possibly also > | applicable to v4 reverse... > | > | One of our customers has a somewhat complex DNS setup which makes us > | face the situation that in the SOA record the name of the NS where > | the zone originates is not in the set of responses to NS queries. > | > | While this is not the common case, I presume, it seems to NOT be "illegal". > | > | The domain has to on-site name servers and is configured to have a slave > | at the NCC. > | > | For this zone we received an alert that the ZXFR has failed from the > | machine with the name given in the SOA. That box will never be serving > | external zone transfer requests. > | > | So - this may just be a glitch in the alerting script, but I am still > | left with the question: how does the robot at the NCC's end determine > | the "appropriate" host to try zone transfers from? > | > | Any recommendations? > | > | Thanks, > | Wilfreid. > >
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] rev delegation robot and selection of NS to pull zone from
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] rev delegation robot and selection of NS to pull zone from
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]