I have been given the task of trying to document and cleanup an existing DNS implementation for a large company.
I have a mixture of DNS servers running on AIX and Windows Domain Controllers providing DNS for each sub-domain in which they exist. My question is, why do some of these Windows DNS servers have multiple NS Records? In addition to the two NS records that define the Master/Slave for the zone, there are over 150 NS Records for what appear to be simply hosts in that zone. Is it possible that someone mistakenly could have added these records, believing they were necessary to allow zone transfers to hosts setup as caching name servers? I am at a loss to understand why this was done. I have read through O'Reilly's DNS-and-Bind and do not see any reference to this configuration.
I have a mixture of DNS servers running on AIX and Windows Domain Controllers providing DNS for each sub-domain in which they exist. My question is, why do some of these Windows DNS servers have multiple NS Records? In addition to the two NS records that define the Master/Slave for the zone, there are over 150 NS Records for what appear to be simply hosts in that zone. Is it possible that someone mistakenly could have added these records, believing they were necessary to allow zone transfers to hosts setup as caching name servers? I am at a loss to understand why this was done. I have read through O'Reilly's DNS-and-Bind and do not see any reference to this configuration.
