From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Jan 16 3:13:31 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from sai.co.za (mail.sai.co.za [196.33.40.37]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C0F37B6A5 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:13:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from fdisk ([196.33.40.17]) by mail.sai.co.za (SBMail MTA v2.11(1096) SMTPD32) with ESMTP id AA9376; for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:12:27 0200 (South Africa Standard Time) From: "Dave Wilson" To: "Troy Settle" Cc: Subject: RE: DNS redundancy & load balancing (Thanks everyone: will test out the options soon) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:13:51 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi Troy & everyone, Thanks for your input, I'll give all options a try soon. Kindest regards David Wilson The S.A Internet #include -----Original Message----- From: Troy Settle [mailto:troy@psknet.com] Sent: 15 January 2001 04:14 To: Dave Wilson Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: DNS redundancy & load balancing Dave, I believe you can achive this with some creative routing: Assuming you have 2 boxes to do DNS, bind the both of the IPs that you assign for DNS servers to the loopback device, then set up routes for both IPs to both boxes. If one of the boxes goes down, the route will become invalid, causing the other box to pull the full load. Gateway: 192.168.10.1 Box1: fxp0 - 192.168.10.2 lo0 - 192.168.20.2 and 192.168.20.3 Box2: fxp0 - 192.168.10.3 lo0 - 192.168.20.2 and 192.168.20.3 Either use OSPF (ala Zebra), or set up static routes on the gateway. OSPF is my preference. -- Troy Settle Pulaski Networks 540.994.4254 They told me to think out of the box, but I tripped over it, now I own my own company. ** -----Original Message----- ** From: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG ** [mailto:owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Dave Wilson ** Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 9:01 AM ** To: Matthew Horoschun ** Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG ** Subject: RE: DNS redundancy & load balancing ** ** ** Hi Matthew, ** ** Thanks for getting back to me. ** Yea our NAS assigns our clients both DNS.... unfortunately many of our ** clients are still using Win '95. ** ** Kindest regards ** David Wilson ** The S.A Internet ** ** ** ** ** #include ** ** -----Original Message----- ** From: Matthew Horoschun [mailto:matthew@actweb.net] ** Sent: 16 January 2001 08:12 ** To: Dave Wilson ** Subject: Re: DNS redundancy & load balancing ** ** ** ** ** Dave Wilson wrote: ** ** > Hi Matthew, ** > ** > Indeed but clients have their primary DNS server set to our ** primary, thus ** if ** > our primary goes down no resolution takes place. ** > Clients have a their seconday DNS set to our secondary DNS, but we've ** found ** > that often M$ machines never even try looking at their secondary DNS ** server. ** > Any ideas ? ** ** Dave, ** ** Do your access servers allocate your customers with Name server IP's on ** connection? Are you specifying both there? ** ** I've seen the same thing in the past... although I have a ** feeling it was a ** bug ** that M$ fixed by about the time 'doze98 came out?... i.e. in DUN1.2? ** ** Matthew. ** ** ** ** ** To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org ** with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message ** ** To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message