Hey, since you've asked about ISC recommendations and good practice, we prefer to use the current DNS terminology as defined in RFC 8499[1] that says:
> Although early DNS RFCs such as [RFC1996] referred to this as a "master", > the current common usage has shifted to "primary". and > Although early DNS RFCs such as [RFC1996] referred to this as a "slave", > the current common usage has shifted to calling it a "secondary". The configuration and documentation in BIND 9 has also shifted to use the up-to-date terminology, so speaking of the best practice, I would recommend using the current naming of the server roles and current naming of the configuration options. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý (He/Him) ond...@isc.org 1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8499 My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. > On 31. 1. 2025, at 22:03, Karol Nowicki via bind-users > <bind-users@lists.isc.org> wrote: > > Hi Everyone > > With design where one ISC Bind DNS server is a master for domain example1.com > while in same time acts like as Slave for another one lets say example2.com > do we breaks any ISC recomendations or good practice ? > > > Wysłane z Yahoo Mail do iPhone > -- > Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from > this list > > ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. > Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. > > > bind-users mailing list > bind-users@lists.isc.org > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users -- Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
