Subject: Re: rsync vs. axfr-clarify (was: in support of axfr-clarify)

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:20:16 +0100

--On Tuesday, December 10, 2002 21:26:40 +0000 "D. J. Bernstein"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> > My recommended use of rsync is to replicate complete _servers_. This
>> > has a simple meaning: the servers respond identically to every query.
>> A cool concept. And a fringe case at best.
> 
> In fact, even though BIND makes it unnecessarily difficult to set up,
> this is an extremely popular configuration. AXFR today has two main uses:
> 
>    (1) as a clumsy mechanism of replicating servers and
>    (2) as a clumsy mechanism of editing zone files remotely.

(3) Debugging of horribly b0rken setups. 

> Except at companies that sell third-party DNS service, there's very
> little demand for any type of replication other than server replication.
> Yes, we can all point to examples such as arpa-vs.-root-servers.net, but
> those examples are the fringe case.

This could just turn into another proportions debate, so I'll try not to.
But, my experience is that cloned servers are rare, but do exist. They
typically are multimasters; ie there is a parallel zone/config file
generator that simultaneously builds a config outside of the DNS protocol. 

Thus, I argue, this is not namedroppers matter, and somebody should shut me
up. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson            Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204         KTHNOC  MN1334-RIPE

We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.