Re: Puzzling scenario involving views

This is a discussion on Re: Puzzling scenario involving views within the Bind Users forums, part of the DNS and Related Forums category; My apologies, didn't shoot to the list On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 10:34:13PM -0400, Kevin Darcy ...


Go Back   Usenet Forums > DNS and Related Forums > Bind Users

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2004
Peter Rabbitson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Puzzling scenario involving views

My apologies, didn't shoot to the list

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 10:34:13PM -0400, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> Peter Rabbitson wrote:
>
> >Hello list,
> >I have a bind9 serving the domain example.com, with a secondary backup dns
> >(secondary.com) at a remote location. I wanted to achieve redundancy of
> >both domains provided to each other (example.com has secondary.com as
> >2nd NS, and vice versa), and at the same time I wanted to define internal
> >and external views in example.com for internal network naming purposes. I
> >got it working fairly quick with the example below, however here is my
> >problem: members of the insiders acl would not receive an AA answer when
> >inquiring about secondary.com.
> >

> Is this important? I have yet to find an application that cares about
> the setting of the AA bit.
>

The AA bit is not important however the WAN overhead is: When members of
internal query for secondary.com the name server performs the whole 9 yards
of querying the root, then the bind at secondary.com. Granted it caches the
obtained entry for some time, however it will eventually ask again after a
couple of days. So what originally made me ask this question was why bind
does not do some kind of loopback lookup - after all it IS authoritative for
secondary.com. Either way I completely understand the model you are
suggesting with the "no second opinion" clause. In this case I assume I
could do the following, both reducing AXFR transactions to 1 and retaining
authoritativity:

acl "insiders" {
192.168.0.0/24;
127.0.0.1;
};

acl "secondary" {
xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;
};

view "internal" {
match-clients { insiders; };

zone "secondary.com" {
type master;
file "slave.secondary.com";
notify no;
masters { xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx; };
};
};

view "external" {
match-clients { any; };

zone "secondary.com" {
type slave;
file "slave.secondary.com";
masters { xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx; };
};
};

Or is this a bad idea...? If it is I guess next choice is to have
slave.secondary.com.internal and slave.secondary.com.external and
2 transactions per AFXR.

Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0