On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:44, Tony Finch <d...@dotat.at> wrote:
Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: In that sense the idea of using a single master (which I think is implied by "primary master" and a name published in a single MNAME field) is defensibly archaic. It's quite difficult to have multiple masters and DNSSEC and coherent copies of the zone from all masters - i.e. more effort than just spinning up parallel instances of BIND or Knot in automatic signing mode. Note that I wasn't talking about multiple signers; I was talking about (from the perspective of one particular slave) having multiple masters available to serve precisely the same zone. Feeding a large array of slaves (eg hundreds, including individual members if clusters) with large numbers of zones from a single master doesn't scale very well. Joe
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
