> >> The DNS approach does not handle single or multiple system failures, > >> only very elementary load balancing over a lengthy period of time. > > > > Are you shure of that? I'm aware that the load criteria is trickier, > > but very possible.
Yes, very sure. Look at past posts relative to the Broadvoice.com problem and you'll see one step in the recommended 'fix' was to install a /etc/hosts entry in the customer's system. Once something like that is done getting that admin to remove/change it is almost impossible. > Operating systems and probably a lot of devices *cache* the results of > DNS lookups. That means removing A records won't do any good. One can specify a short dns cache time within the primary dns, however a substantial number of machines ignore the value. > Short story: No matter what network service is being balanced, if you > want to guard against failure and against customers noticing that > failure use a real load balancing solution, DDNS is not suitable. Agree with that 100%. _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
