On 12/28/2016 07:24 AM, Berry A.W. van Halderen wrote:
Unfortunately, though behavior IS apparently sensitive to that order,
they just fail *differently*.
Then how *does* that fail then?
Bottom line, it doesn't work. As to the details, I'll have to
re-diagnose & re-gather details if I stick with it ...
On 12/28/2016 03:01 PM, PGNet Dev wrote:
Different programs,
yes
different requirements.
Depends what you're talking about.
If the requirement is to be able to "address" & communicate securely
with different endpoints differently, then no -- not so different.
All in all, the outgoing interface needs to be able to reach the
destination, if not all slave servers are on the same network,
Which is in my own experience a far more frequent situation than having
multiple slaves on the SAME network, where typically a properly sized
single nameserver + network work well enough.
TBH, it's a headscratcher for me that the option for different IPs is
provided in inbound/outbound DNS adapters, but that the argument is that
that's now how it's supposed to work ...
If I can't talk to different servers, and automate it all, what's the
point?
you would need to be able to specify a outgoing-interface on a
per destination basis.
Sure, that's one approach.
It will get very hairy then.
Sorry, I don't buy that as a necessary fact. Again, nsd4 manages well
enough ...
So far, the assumption that the primary address, had been good enough.
??
We can always extend functionality.
That's the basis for my previous question -- will, vs can?
_______________________________________________
Opendnssec-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opendnssec.org/mailman/listinfo/opendnssec-user
