On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote: > Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that isn't > listed as a NS record?
Sure. The SOA MNAME is expected to be the "primary master" nameserver for the zone; it's where things like dhcpd and such send dynamic updates for the zone to. > The server listed as MNAME will host the zone and is authoritative for the > zone, but out of latency concerns it isn't ideal to have other resolvers > querying this server. Okay...so why would you use that nameserver at all, then? Choose a nameserver which is suitable for other resolvers to query for your master. > Various online DNS diagnostic tools throw warnings, but as far as I can tell > from the RFCs, this is a valid configuration. Is it valid? Are there any > operational gotchas to be aware of or can I ignore the "warnings"? It's not valid, but if you aren't doing dynamic updates to the zone, and you can live without SOA serial # sanity checking by slave nameservers trying to determine whether the zone has been updated or not by checking with the MNAME server, sure, you can setup DNS in such a fashion and (probably) nothing else would break. Regards, -- -Chuck _______________________________________________ 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
