On Sep 27, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Christopher Cain wrote:

> Hi all.
> I am setting up a new appliance-based DNS solution that will contain a fair 
> number of separately managed Windows DNS slave servers (in addition to the 
> DNS appliances that will handle the .
> Currently there are just over 8000 host records that resolve to IP's in the 
> 10.x.x.x space.  I am wrestling with whether or not I should create a single 
> 10.in-addr.arpa zone or if I should create 256 /16 zones (i.e. - 
> 0.10.in-addr.arpa to 255.10.in-addr.arpa).
> The reason I want to encompass the entire 10 space is so new arpa zones will 
> not have to be defined on all servers (specifically on the Windows slaves) if 
> a new part of the 10 space is used at some point.
> Any recommendations or comments would be greatly appreciated.

There's nothing wrong with a single 10.in-addr.arpa zone. If you need to break 
it up amongst different master servers, a 10.in-addr.arpa zone can still be 
used to delegate child zones to their respective servers.

You might break it up if, for example, the DDNS traffic from DHCP clients 
across the enterprise would be too much for one master server to accommodate. 
The BIND name server writes to its journal file synchronously, for every 
update, and this can be quite a bottleneck. (The same is true for slave 
servers, which keep a journal file for zone transfers in order to service IXFR 
requests sent to them.)

Chris Buxton
BlueCat Networks

bind-users mailing list

Reply via email to