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"? Anyway what we do is in our views is simply name the internal zone files the same as external and prepend internal- to the name. e.g. myzone.com = external zone file internal-myzone.com = internal zone file. If they're the same you can simply copy from one to the other. Sometimes they are not the same which is why you have views in the first place. -----Original Message----- From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Constantin Stefanov Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:37 AM To: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Single slave zone definition for two view (cache file name problem) Hello. After upgrading from BIND 4.6 to 4.10.2, named requires that different slave zone have separate file for cache. With 4.6 I had the following config: named.conf: view "internal" { match /* match condition */; include "common.zones"; }; view "external" { match /* match condition */; include "common.zones"; }; common.zones: zone "aaa.example.org" { type slave; file "slave/aaa.example.org"; masters {MASTERIP;}; }; It worked fine with 4.6 (although it was considered incorrect). After upgrade to 4.10 named started complaining: common.zones:3: writeable file 'slave/aaa.example.org': already in use: common.zones:3 As I understand, now I need to have separate files for different views. But is there a way to have them automatically assigned and to write something like: file "slave/aaa.example.org.${view_name}" or any other way to have only one defininition for common zones? 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 another (with 'in-view') in all other views, so I have to keep two separate files synced with one another. So is it possible to have only one definition for slave zones that are shared between different views? -- Konstantin Stefanov, Research Computing Center M.V Lomonosov Moscow State University _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
