Hi,
I'm setting up a DNS server, I've already succesfuly configured the master dns server but, I'm having troubles with the slave.
What I can't reach is the slave dns to automatically copy the zones from the primary.
I do not know what am I doing wrong. But if I add a zone at the primary and look at the secundary dns is not there.
Does someone has any ideas about how to fix this?

Thanks!

Ps: here is the secundary dns' named.conf.
// $FreeBSD: src/etc/namedb/named.conf,v 1.6.2.7 2003/02/13 13:16:51
keramida Exp $

options {
directory "/etc/namedb";
// allow-transfer "196.40.45.10" ;

// forward only;

forwarders {
127.0.0.1;
};

};

zone "." {
type hint;
file "named.root";
};

zone "0.0.127.IN-ADDR.ARPA" {
type slave;
file "localhost.rev";
masters {
196.40.45.10;
};
};

Your slave needs to be listed as an IN NS record in each zone file on the master that you want it to be a slave for. Updates are not instantaneous, it can take several hours before a slave updates. You also need to restart or kill -HUP your master (AFTER INCREMENTING THE SERIAL ON THE ZONE!) in order for the master to read the new zone information from disk and notify slaves. You should have a log message in /var/log/messages (or whever your daemon information is going) that says "loding zone blah blah with serial 343749827, sending notifications..."

By the way, if you're not already you need to allow 53/TCP from the slave to the master in order to transfer the zone. Zone transfers are always done with TCP, while most (not all!) queries are done over UDP.

So, with that I won't have to create new zones in both servers?
or a must create them and the they will update automatically?

Thanks!

Yes, BUT you have to increment the serial number in each zone, each time you change that zone. You also have to restart or -HUP the named process on the primary.

Oh, and each of those zones still has to be defined on the named.conf on the slave (otherwise it wouldn't know it's supposed to be a slave for that zone!).

Thanks chort,

That was the problem I was having i didn't know that it also had to be defined on the slave's named.conf.

Thank you very much... Really!

Bye!