Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:54:53 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: "Chris H." <fbsd@1command.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bind round robin Message-ID: <4510C99D.2010806@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20060919141948.gxpxiuyyskc8w0k8@webmail.1command.com> References: <450F8777.7080407@gmail.com> <20060919083955.GB87657@e-Gitt.NET> <45102E4E.80600@FreeBSD.org> <20060919141948.gxpxiuyyskc8w0k8@webmail.1command.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chris H. wrote:
> Greetings all,
> ...
> Quoting Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>:
>
>> Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
>>>
>>> DNS round robin is not about redundancy, the only thing you could have
>>> that way is a kind of load balancing (not the most sophisticated way,
>>> though). Whenever one of the servers fails, around half of the requests
>>> still goes there and then times out/gets conn refused or whatever the
>>> problem is. Prioritizing is not easily possible. Probably it helps if
>>> you add one of the IPs more often to the set, but I never tried that and
>>> did not read the docs on this topic, so before breaking your zone first
>>> read the specs, if this works!
>>
>> Just replying to this bit first, in BIND it does not work to specify
>> the same IP address multiple times for the same hostname. The server
>> will collapse the duplicates into one unique entry when it reads the
>> zone. I am not aware of any other authoritative name server for which
>> this would work either.
>
> While this /might/ hold true in some/certain situations.
Under the circumstances that Oliver suggested, what I said holds true
in every situation (assuming you are using BIND). The example you
pasted, while colorful, is not actually an example of what Oliver
suggested. If you would like me to write out an example I will, but:
A) This subject is already off topic, and
B) It would more usefully be left as an exercise for the reader.
> I /can/ say after 3.5 yrs. of doing exactly this,
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt. See above.
> that it does not collapse the namespace into a single IP<-->name.
It might also be useful to note here that nothing about DNS is
(automatically) bi-directional in the manner you imply here.
I do concur with your suggestion to move this thread to a list that is
focused on DNS, however ....
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4510C99D.2010806>