Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:55:16 +0200 From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: bv@wjv.com Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Failover question/idea/hint Message-ID: <44305.956004916@verdi.nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:25:47 -0400 (EDT)" References: <200004171625.MAA39745@mail.wanlogistics.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> An old client of mine is bringing up a portal site. They current have > a T1 to their location, but the site is going to be put on a server > at our co-location facility - which is inside an OC-48 connected facility. > > They are going to keep theri T1 and the current site as a development > site, but they want to be able to use that site as a fail-over site > in case the main site goes down. ... > I can't t see that the round-robin DNS approach would work, but if the > primary DNS (located at tha main site) goes down, would that be enough > to force it to the secondary name server - which I'm thinking could > point to the backup site. If by "primary" and "secondary" you mean the normal DNS master and slave servers (this is the current terminology), it won't work: - The master and the slave(s) are supposed to have the *same* data. The slave(s) fetch a copy of the zone data from the master. - The "rest of the world" do not differentiate between master and slave name servers - all they do is choose one of the *authoritative* name servers. Master and slave(s) are all supposed to be authoritative, of course. To put it another way: As seen from the outside, there is no difference between "primary" and "secondary" name servers! Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44305.956004916>