<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'><br>> > We explicitly do not want to depend on any particular database<br>> > features for DNS records' replication.<br>> <br>> Would it be feasible to build a fully RFC 1925 (6a) [1] compliant<br>> solution?<br>> <br>> (1)<br>> Have a supermaster SM run from Oracle<br>> <br>> (2)<br>> Have a single superslave SS run against the supermaster, replicating<br>> via DNS<br>> <br>> (3)<br>> Have SS run against a MySQL backend which does MySQL replication to<br>> your normal slaves NS1 up to NSx.<br><br>Once
one has replication via DNS, backend can be anything, so yes, this
would be a feasible scenario, because DNS replication abstracts the
storage engine away, which was our goal.<br><br>Nevertheless, in my experience, this should
be handled by the pdns software. I'm thinking that if pdns supermaster is
capable of "persuading" a superslave to become a slave for a domain, and
then a transfer takes place, would it not be logical to expect that
when said domain is removed from the supermaster, the superslave gets a
message to ditch said domain?<br><br>My main question still remains
unanswered though: one of the main reasons we ditched BIND was the
supermaster / superslave functionality.<br><br>If I open a request for enhancement, how much impetus inside of PowerDNS is there to implement this functionality?<br> </div></body>
</html>