Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:23:36 +0100
From:      Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd>
To:        Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com>
Subject:   Re: DNS - slaving the root zone
Message-ID:  <4F3F8A38.10303@my.gd>
In-Reply-To: <4F3EE984.8020007@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <4F3E5925.8020004@my.gd> <4F3EE984.8020007@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On 2/18/12 12:57 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> 
> To clarify, almost universally the opposition to the idea centers around
> the problems of users who enable this method, and then don't notice if
> something changes/breaks, resulting in a stale zone (or zones, depending
> on what you choose to slave). I have always acknowledged that this is a
> valid concern, just not one that I think overwhelms the virtues of doing
> the slaving in the first place.
> 

Could you elaborate on the "something changes/breaks, admin doesn't
notice, results in a stale zone" bit ?

I fail to see the circumstances under which that could happen.



> The method currently in comments in /etc/namedb/named.conf suggests
> servers generously provided by ICANN that are dedicated to allowing AXFR
> of various infrastructure zones. (Note, ICANN does not necessarily
> endorse the idea of slaving these zones for resolvers, but I do have
> their permission to include these servers in our named.conf.) That
> alleviates one of the other criticisms of slaving these zones, as it
> presents no load on the actual root servers at all.
> 
> So in short, this is an excellent idea, I've been doing it/recommending
> it for years, and assuming you have the knowledge/ability to keep your
> resolvers up to date (and/or you're tracking our named.conf where I do
> it for you) then it's totally safe to do.
> 

Indeed, been deleting the traditional hint file based . zone for a while
and using the slaving mechanism for over a year already, works fine
enough for us.

You have me somewhat worried with the bit about something breaking
though, thus the call for details ;)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F3F8A38.10303>