On 11/5/2011 4:21 AM, kalpesh varyani wrote: > How does this feature address the risk that data provided by one master > might get overwritten by another?
The use of the word "masters" in the configuration of a slave zone is a
bit misleading. Under most circumstances, you list the authoritative
servers, not "multiple masters".
I have long advocated (for clarity sake) that it should be:
slave example.com {
type slave;
authoritatives { 192.0.2.12; 203.0.113.53; };
};
instead of:
slave example.com {
type slave;
masters { 192.0.2.12; 203.0.113.53; };
};
But that would break lots of configuration files. :)
AlanC
--
a...@clegg.com | acl...@infoblox.com
1.919.355.8851
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
