Re: [dnsext] New Version Notification for draft-ah-dnsext-rfc1995bis-ixfr-02

[Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>]

Mark Andrews wrote:

> No.  I think Shane means that they have been out of contact long
> enough that the AXFR style response is smaller than the IXFR style
> response and the upstream supplied a AXFR style response.

So, it's not two distribution servers but their clients, which
fail?

It's not a problem, as long as the distribution servers are
synchronized.

But, as Shane said "both distribution servers will need a full
AXFR when they restart", he seemingly assumes failures of
distribution servers, I'm afraid.

Anyway,

>> Even then, there is no point of IXFR-only because, with your example,
>> neither server can offer IXFR.
> 
> You are missing Shanes point,

What?

> which is that after the initial AXFR
> style response that the slaves that transferred from the DM that
> transfered first, and hence had a lower serial, will not be able
> to get a delta style response from the other DM.

Are you saying two distribution servers (never introduce new
terminology such as DM only to amplify the confusion) do not
have the same history of a zone?

How can it happen without severe operational errors?

Note that you don't assume failure of distribution servers.

> Shane isn't saying that it is a desirable solution.
> 
> The other solution is to prevent the axfr's out from the DM's until they
> both have the same serials available ixfr from.

I'm afraid both Shane and you have confused ideas on the configuration
of DNS servers, partially because of improper terminologies.

						Masataka Ohta