Subject: RFC1996 and IXFR dependency graph loops

From: Ketil Froyn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:46:17 +0200 (CEST)

Hello.

Section 2.2 of RFC1996 states:

   2.2. The zone's servers must be organized into a dependency graph
   such that there is a primary master, and all other servers must use
   AXFR or IXFR either from the primary master or from some slave which
   is also a master.  No loops are permitted in the AXFR dependency
   graph.

I read this to mean that loops in IXFR dependency graphs are legal, but
loops in AXFR dependency graphs are not. Does anyone know the reason AXFR
loops are not allowed, and then the reason why IXFR loops are ok?

Thanks,
Ketil

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:06:18 +0200

> loops are not allowed, and then the reason why IXFR loops are ok?

There are no two graphs, since the dependencies are intended to be the same
whether you use AXFR or IXFR. The graph has just been named after AXFR where
*XFR - or something similar - might have been less specific and thus would
have avoided the ambiguity you've seen.

-Peter

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:32:24 +0000

that's a typo.  should say "No loops are permitted in the AXFR/IXFR
dependency graph."

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:39:41 +1000

> loops are not allowed, and then the reason why IXFR loops are ok?

	They arn't.

--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]