home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: ash@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Art Harkin)
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:56:29 GMT
- Subject: Re: Problem: SOA record in INCLUDE file
- Message-ID: <6820002@hpindda.cup.hp.com>
- Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hplextra!hpcss01!hpindda!ash
- Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
- References: <VERGHESE.92Dec14150221@akki_e.apollo.hp.com>
- Lines: 24
-
- / hpindda:comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains / verghese@apollo.hp.com (Ben Verghese) / 12:02 pm Dec 14, 1992 /
-
- > I have observed a problem with the namserver when the SOA record for a domain
- > is included from another file using $INCLUDE. An error message is generated
- > through syslog saying that no SOA record was found. All queries for records in
- > that domain are answered as non-authoritative. I looked at the BIND code
- > (version 4.37?) and this is what the code does. It seems to me that SOA
- > records should not be shared across named database files for different
- > domains. Can someone tell me if there is a written or unwritten convention
- > about SOA records and INCLUDE files.
-
- There is a patch circulating for allowing only one SOA RR per
- domain. It will allow the SOA record to be in the include file, but there
- can still only be one SOA RR. From what I understand, the LONG AWAITED
- next release of named will include this patch, so it will become de facto.
- From what I can tell, there is no clear yes or no to multiple SOAs in
- the RFCs, however the method of choosing the authorative SOA RR would be
- confusing if multiple SOAs are allowed.
-
- Art Harkin
-
- Hewlett-Packard Company E-mail: ash@cup.hp.com
- Information Networks Division
- 19420 Homestead Road MS 43LN, Cupertino, CA 95014
-