On 02/19/2016 08:04 PM, John Miller wrote:
In the case of dynamic updates, one NS record might actually be better: there's no worrying about update forwarding between slave and master.
It's been my painful experience that (particularly Windows) clients send dynamic DNS updates to the MNAME listed in the SOA, /NOT/ necessarily any of the listed NS. (Unless the MNAME happens to be listed as an NS.)
As such, I don't see any confusion over which of multiple NS dynamic updates are sent to.
Further, I'd argue that slave NS should be configured to forward updates to the master (ultimately MNAME).
-- Grant. . . . unix || die _______________________________________________ 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
