There is no issue with a configuration like this. It is the very definition of a stealth master and is a very common configuration. Any DDNS updates will continue to reach the stealth master via the mname and no resolvers will find the master via NS records so it won't be queried. On Jan 16, 2013 3:42 PM, "Dave Warren" <li...@hireahit.com> wrote:
> Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that > isn't listed as a NS record? > > The server listed as MNAME will host the zone and is authoritative for the > zone, but out of latency concerns it isn't ideal to have other resolvers > querying this server. > > Various online DNS diagnostic tools throw warnings, but as far as I can > tell from the RFCs, this is a valid configuration. Is it valid? Are there > any operational gotchas to be aware of or can I ignore the "warnings"? > > -- > Dave Warren > http://www.hireahit.com/ > http://ca.linkedin.com/in/**davejwarren<http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren> > > ______________________________**_________________ > Please visit > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/**listinfo/bind-users<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<https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users> >
_______________________________________________ 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
