Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:40:46 -0500 From: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BIND 9 Message-ID: <87n0f5xf0x.fsf@pooh.honeypot.net> In-Reply-To: <1058980661.3981.0.camel@jupiter.main.gaddis.org> (Jeremy Gaddis's message of "23 Jul 2003 12:17:41 -0500") References: <8AE4DA75-BCC1-11D7-9DA1-000A957FF666@pacbell.net> <87d6g1zwt7.fsf@pooh.honeypot.net> <1058980661.3981.0.camel@jupiter.main.gaddis.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 2003-07-23T17:17:41Z, Jeremy Gaddis <jeremy@gaddis.org> writes:
> No, it's generally considered {easier,better,more manageable,...} to only
> have one instance of BIND. BIND can be master for some domains and slave
> for others, so there really is no need.
I agree completely. That question was pointed at the OP; I was trying to
see if there was something they were trying to accomplish that was out of
the ordinary.
=2D-=20
Kirk Strauser
--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQA/Htau5sRg+Y0CpvERAmDQAKCH4jDXbPXo2CkH+WEakK9UsSBnOgCZAXTk
Z3vPjBE22iZJQWzd8dBXA/w=
=gJKc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87n0f5xf0x.fsf>