On 18.03.2015 16:12, Lightner, Jeff wrote: > It isn't really that hard to maintain two separate zone files for > each domain. We've been doing it for years. It isn't. But maintaining one file is easier. And having to maintain two after five years everything worked fine with one is annoying.
> It isn't really clear why you're using views if all your zone files > are the same as you seem to imply. Here we do views specifically because > for some domains the zone files DO need to be different between internal > and external views. While others are the same as I noted before it is > very easy to simply edit one file then copy it to the other. Not all my zones are identical, but most, and there is quite a bunch of them. The problem is that two files for identical zones can't be the same as they used to be. They must differ in file names for slave zone caches, or have 'in-view' directive. So simply copying does not work, otherwise 'include' would work fine. > -----Original Message----- > From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org > [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Konstantin Stefanov > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 6:31 AM > To: bind-users@lists.isc.org > Subject: Re: Single slave zone definition for two view (cache file name > problem) > > On 18.03.2015 13:22, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >>>> On 18.03.15 12:05, Constantin Stefanov wrote: >>>>> I can't. It stopped working after upgrade to 9.10, but worked >>>>> before with 9.6. And the question is how to keep the config as >>>>> simple as it was before upgrade. >>>> >>>> I mean, the "in-view" definitions... >> >> On 18.03.15 13:10, Konstantin Stefanov wrote: >>> So now I have to have two definitions for every slave zone in >>> different files. Well, it is the thing I did, but I do not like it. >>> >>> Requirement to have 2 synced definitions in 2 different places leads >>> to bugs. >> >> and what did you have before? >> multiple definitions of the same zones with the same filenames, which >> leads to bugs (although you were lucky not to encounter them) > Yes, I was lucky and everything worked for me as I thought it had to be. > >> >> now you can have: >> >> definitions of zones with filename in one general view >> >> file with definitions of zones with "in-view". >> >> multiple inclusions of the file in multiple views. > And now I am unlucky as I have to make my cofig more complex, confusing and > bug-prone to achieve the same effect. > > But I'm lucky enough to have three options to choose how to spoil my config. > >> >>>>>> the only other way is stop using views... >> ... you still can stop using views. > And I can still stop using DNS. > > If I only could stop using views, I would not ask the question. > > -- > Konstantin Stefanov, > > Research Computing Center > M.V Lomonosov Moscow State University > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Konstantin Stefanov, Research Computing Center M.V Lomonosov Moscow State University _______________________________________________ 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
