Bind sync between master and slave

I wonder how to configure BIND on my piti network and transfer of zone is a very important issue, especially at the "meaning".

Let the decor: IPCOP with interfaces red (192.168.3.x) - Orange (192.168.2.x) - Green (192.168.1.x)
I want my server(s) DNS itself(are) set(s) for the orange and green areas.

So I said it took 2 men, one in the green network and the other in orange, but I ptet wrong

If I am right (it could happen you never know), what DNS server must be master and which must be slave? I read that it was the master who sent the "Notify" but it was the slave who initiated the transfer.

I confess that I ask myself questions about security, the simplest was a single DNS server in the DMZ Orange who ran the 2 areas, possible?

Bind dns server is still quite heavy. However, it is very powerful.

For example:
- Syntax files is not instantaneous,
- It allows to make split view: adaptive response by the applicant.

In multi-site, we can have N servers (DNS and DHCP). In single-site, it is a waste ...

Can you explain me a doubt that these DNS servers or are not intended to be primary and secondary on the internet? Maybe you're right, but I do not understand what justifies a solution, certainly powerful, but also cumbersome to manage some of the names of hosts on a small network. For you have said little.

I agree that single site for 10 machines is wasteful. It is therefore possible to mount a single server in the DMZ Bind without concern for "security"?

I answered a little alone, a PC 192.168.1.10 (on the LAN) contact my DNS server is 192.168.2.2 in the DMZ but authoritative zones 192.168.1.* and 192.168.2.*. He asked to go to google.com, the DNS server knows and he responds. So far, so good.

Thinking like that, I do not see where my problem was and why I hesitated on one or two DNS servers. At one level security is fine because the answer is to "demand" (ie connection is established) level redundancy but I have not (is it important for a small network?).

Well I'll try and I would see. But the question on the meaning of "synchronization" is still valid. This is just to know where to DMZ and put that on the LAN, open access in that LAN to DMZ, but ok in the other, I am far from warm.

An example:

- A small business
- An internal network of 6 fixed microphones, 4 laptops, 1 Windows 2003 server, 1 Linux server (Debian / Postfix)
- A firewall, a DMZ with a relay mail and a web server.

In this case, can largely be W2K3 dhcp and dns. (Basic is the dynamic dns).

What interest have a private DNS server for the DMZ? None in the example I cited.

Another example:

- Accommodation (name, website, mail boxes) in a host known
- A local network of 5 microphones,
- A firewall (with an area Fonera)
- A local mail server with local clubs powered by fetchmail
- The same dns name for the internal network.

Here, we use the same name defined on the Internet but has the same values: locally the MX is the local mail server = no return on the Internet to send a box to another.