bind fun

[Shane]

On 28/08/07, Shane <squindler at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/08/07, Andrew Speer <andrew.speer at isolutions.com.au> wrote:
> > I am not sure I understand the bit about "part of the zone is defined in
> > one NS and the rest on another" ..
>
> This was probably a bit vague on my part.
>
> ns1.mydomain.com has NS records for say ftp.adl.mydomain.com,
> mail.adl.mydomain.com, www.mydomain.com ...and a few others. This is
> the primary public NS for our domain. Obviously these are all part of
> zone "mydomain.com"
>
> Internally we've got another NS which has all internal hosts - these
> all are of for hostname.mydomain.com, hence also are part of zone
> "mydomain.com".
>
> What I'm trying to prevent is having to list all the external hosts on
> both servers - when stuff breaks invariably some server or other is
> forgotten to get updates which leads to annoyingly trivial "bug fixes"
> that it would be good to be able to prevent by having bind do stuff
> for me :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Shane.
>

...possibly answering my own question here ...though a small
complication I forgot about.

internal NS ( intns.mydomain.com ):
zone "mydomain.com"{
    type slave;
    file mydomain.hosts;
    master { ns1.mydomain.com };
    also-notify { slave.mydomain.com };
};

then on slave.mydomain.com
zone "mydomain.com" {
    type slave;
    file mydomain.hosts;
    master { intns.mydomain.com };
};

(master and also-notify just using names cos its easier to follow than IP's)

far as I can tell this should work - except that any requests to
something on the external ns would always need to go through the
primary internal NS (intns) which kinda defeats the purpose of the
slave ...