On 18.03.2015 20:10, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 06:11:56PM +0300, Konstantin Stefanov wrote:
>> On 18.03.2015 17:41, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:48:40AM +0300, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
I see why it may lead to problems.
But in fact the configur
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 06:11:56PM +0300, Konstantin Stefanov wrote:
> On 18.03.2015 17:41, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:48:40AM +0300, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
> >> I see why it may lead to problems.
> >>
> >> But in fact the configuration with only one writable file
> >> ref
On 18.03.2015 18:37, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 18.03.2015 um 16:31 schrieb Konstantin Stefanov:
>> I wrote earlier and may repeat again. The feature for me is not using
>> the same file, the feature is having a clear and maitainable config. In
>> this case it means to have only one description f
Am 18.03.2015 um 16:31 schrieb Konstantin Stefanov:
I wrote earlier and may repeat again. The feature for me is not using
the same file, the feature is having a clear and maitainable config. In
this case it means to have only one description for a zone.
did you ever consider provisioning your
On 18.03.2015 18:10, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
> From: Konstantin Stefanov
>
>> The issue is that named started to detect it since, if I'm not mistaken,
>> 9.7. It happened because such config was leading to bugs, but instead of
>> fixing the bugs, the whole feature was prohibited.
>
> "That's not a
On 18.03.2015 17:41, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:48:40AM +0300, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
>> I see why it may lead to problems.
>>
>> But in fact the configuration with only one writable file
>> referenced several times is suported now. If I write:
>>
>> view "view1" {
>>
On 18.03.2015 17:18, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> rOn 18.03.15 17:10, Konstantin Stefanov wrote:
>> The issue is that named started to detect it since, if I'm not mistaken,
>> 9.7. It happened because such config was leading to bugs, but instead of
>> fixing the bugs, the whole feature was prohi
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:48:40AM +0300, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
> I see why it may lead to problems.
>
> But in fact the configuration with only one writable file
> referenced several times is suported now. If I write:
>
> view "view1" {
> zone "aaa.exampe.org" {
> maste
rOn 18.03.15 17:10, Konstantin Stefanov wrote:
The issue is that named started to detect it since, if I'm not mistaken,
9.7. It happened because such config was leading to bugs, but instead of
fixing the bugs, the whole feature was prohibited.
those bugs _were_ fixed: the in-view statement and
On 18.03.2015 16:55, Steven Carr wrote:
> On 18 March 2015 at 13:30, Konstantin Stefanov wrote:
>> It isn't. But maintaining one file is easier. And having to maintain two
>> after five years everything worked fine with one is annoying.
>
> This highlights the need for a test environment, don't a
On 18 March 2015 at 13:30, Konstantin Stefanov wrote:
> It isn't. But maintaining one file is easier. And having to maintain two
> after five years everything worked fine with one is annoying.
This highlights the need for a test environment, don't apply untested
updates to production systems, it'
t; 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:
>&
sc.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 wr
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-v
On 18.03.2015 13:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 18.03.15 11:48, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
then both views will refernce ther same writable file, won't they? Or am
I missing something about "in-view" directive?
On 18.03.2015 11:56, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
maybe you could put all
On 18.03.2015 13:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> On 18.03.15 11:48, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
then both views will refernce ther same writable file, won't they? Or am
I missing something about "in-view" directive?
>
>> On 18.03.2015 11:56, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> maybe y
On 18.03.15 11:48, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
then both views will refernce ther same writable file, won't they? Or am
I missing something about "in-view" directive?
On 18.03.2015 11:56, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
maybe you could put all those zone definitions into one file and include it
On 18.03.2015 11:56, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 18.03.15 11:48, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
>> But in fact the configuration with only one writable file referenced
>> several times is suported now. If I write:
>>
>> view "view1" {
>> zone "aaa.exampe.org" {
>> masters {IP;}
On 18.03.15 11:48, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
But in fact the configuration with only one writable file referenced
several times is suported now. If I write:
view "view1" {
zone "aaa.exampe.org" {
masters {IP;};
file "slave/aaa.exmaple.org";
};
};
I see why it may lead to problems.
But in fact the configuration with only one writable file referenced
several times is suported now. If I write:
view "view1" {
zone "aaa.exampe.org" {
masters {IP;};
file "slave/aaa.exmaple.org";
};
};
view "view2
Referencing the same writable file in multiple places in named can:
* lead to corrupted journals
* the wrong zone content being published in the wrong view
* named not being able to serve zone content when restarted when the
master is down
* content not showing up in a timely manner
* extra zo
On 17.03.2015 18:32, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 05:36:57PM +0300, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
>> After upgrading from BIND 4.6 to 4.10.2, named requires that
>> different slave zone have separate file for cache.
>
> Surely you mean s/4/9/g, and yes, this is true.
Of course, sorry.
On 17.03.2015 19:34, Tony Finch wrote:
> Constantin Stefanov wrote:
>>
>> I found 'in-view' option, but again it requires two definitions for
>> every zone: one with "file" and "masters" directives, and another with
>> "in-view" option. Moreover, these two definitions must be in different
>> fil
On 17.03.2015 18:05, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
> 4.x would be quite ancient. Where are you getting those version
> numbers? You should be using 9.x these days so I suspect the BIND
> version isn't what you think it is.Is it possible the version
> you're reporting is you OS rather than your BI
Constantin Stefanov wrote:
>
> I found 'in-view' option, but again it requires two definitions for
> every zone: one with "file" and "masters" directives, and another with
> "in-view" option. Moreover, these two definitions must be in different
> files, as I have to include one in first view, and
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 05:36:57PM +0300, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
> After upgrading from BIND 4.6 to 4.10.2, named requires that
> different slave zone have separate file for cache.
Surely you mean s/4/9/g, and yes, this is true.
> With 4.6 I had the following config:
>
> named.conf:
>
> vi
4.x would be quite ancient. Where are you getting those version numbers?
You should be using 9.x these days so I suspect the BIND version isn't what you
think it is.Is it possible the version you're reporting is you OS rather
than your BIND?
What is reported when you run "named -v"?
An
27 matches
Mail list logo
