On Nov 5 2011, Alan Clegg wrote:
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".
Although Alan doesn't say so, this might suggest to some that you should
list *all* the authoritative servers. That's a very bad idea - you need
to arrange that the directed graph of "A can fetch from B" is acyclic.
Otherwise servers can get into the state that A thinks its copy of the
zone is up to date because B told it so, and B thinks so because A told
it so (or longer loops, of course), while neither of them are true masters
for it.
--
Chris Thompson
Email: c...@cam.ac.uk
_______________________________________________
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
