Am 12.07.2014 16:11, schrieb Gary Wallis: > DNS experts, > > What are the drawbacks, if any, of running only master name servers for the > set of authoritative NSs? > > For example given: > > [root@rc37 unxsVZ]# dig latimes.com NS +short > dns1.tribune.com. > dns2.tribune.com. > dns4.tribune.com. > dns3.tribune.com. > > Where all 4 dnsN servers are in fact masters (this is just a hypothetical, > the NS above are most likely secondary > servers)
practically none if all is going fine if you are making a config mistake preventing named to work it makes a difference because the master goes down and the slaves have no chance to pull the mistake been there done that for ISP breaking zone-transfer reasons ______________________________________________________________ example: * subdomain1.example.com -> CNAME to whatever * later a mailsub-domain get addeded * you add MX subdomain1.example.com * named won't load that zone because CNAME and others are not allowed * the slave has no chance to pull such breakage well, that mistake happened years ago and needed to be fixed in our dns-backend to not allow, however at that time the secondary nameserver was a slave and nothing happened if both would have been configured as master and get the same input the zone would have gone offline
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
