to write
my own
modifications.
Thanks.
--
Gordon A. Lang
- Original Message -
From: Chris Buxton
To: Gordon A. Lang ;
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: Bind Clustering
Updates are always forwarded to the zone masters, as configured in
the
zone statement
@lists.isc.org ; Gordon A. Lang
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Bind Clustering
One thing you have top remember is the Slave NEVER updates the Master.
The updater is always the Master and the receiver is always the Slave.
I have posted about using 2 masters. You should
@lists.isc.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: Bind Clustering
Updates are always forwarded to the zone masters, as configured in the
zone statement itself. And yes, the update is only forwarded
(successfully) once.
BIND assumes that each zone has exactly one primary master
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: Bind Clustering
Updates are always forwarded to the zone masters, as configured in the
zone statement itself. And yes, the update is only forwarded
(successfully) once.
BIND assumes that each zone has exactly one primary master. That's
why
Subject: Re: Bind Clustering
In message a2e77adf810a44d1b6aa8ab760abd...@corp.fsroot.flagstar.com,
Gordon
A. Lang writes:
Regarding my wild idea for synchronizing mulitiple dynamic masters..
my idea is flawed.
Evidently, the allow-update-forwarding only forwards to the MNAME
configured
that if the masters list is used, then
ALL masters should always get the updates.
Thanks in advance.
--
Gordon A. Lang
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
To: Gordon A. Lang gl...@goalex.com
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Bind
Regarding my wild idea for synchronizing mulitiple dynamic masters..
my idea is flawed.
Evidently, the allow-update-forwarding only forwards to the MNAME
configured in the SOA. I was thinking it forwarded to the masters
configured in the conf file. Oh well. I guess we'll just have to
wait for
In message a2e77adf810a44d1b6aa8ab760abd...@corp.fsroot.flagstar.com, Gordon
A. Lang writes:
Regarding my wild idea for synchronizing mulitiple dynamic masters..
my idea is flawed.
Evidently, the allow-update-forwarding only forwards to the MNAME
configured in the SOA. I was thinking it
.
Furthermore, introduce load-balancers to mask the clusters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rsync
HTH
- Original Message
From: Arnoud Tijssen atijs...@ram.nl
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org bind-users@lists.isc.org
Sent: Thu, April 8, 2010 7:18:33 AM
Subject: Bind Clustering
We use bind
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 01:18:33PM +0200,
Arnoud Tijssen atijs...@ram.nl wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
Since everything nowadays is dependant on DNS I would like to
cluster my primary server in case of a hardware failure or error.
Why? I really do not see your point. You have
Doesn't DDNS rely on a single SOA? If so, is there a best practice on
how to deal with this?
-Michael
On 4/8/2010 9:15 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 01:18:33PM +0200,
Arnoud Tijssenatijs...@ram.nl wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
Since everything
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:46:04AM -0500,
Michael Hare michael.h...@doit.wisc.edu wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
Doesn't DDNS rely on a single SOA? If so, is there a best practice
on how to deal with this?
Are you sure the OP uses dynamic udpates? It is not obvious from his
On Apr 8, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:46:04AM -0500,
Michael Hare michael.h...@doit.wisc.edu wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
Doesn't DDNS rely on a single SOA? If so, is there a best practice
on how to deal with this?
Are you sure the
13 matches
Mail list logo
