On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 05:39:16PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 01.10.10 12:39, Joerg Dorchain wrote:
> > Well, I could agree agree that "wrong" means not thought of by
> > RfC-Designers and bind implementators (yet).
> probably it was not thought because it's wrong. 

This point is getting religious now, IMHO.
> > > less palatable option:
> > > 
> > > 1. Make the other DNS software available on another IP. So normal DNS
> > > behaviour works.
> > 
> > Hm, this is not too easy in practice, but of course optimal solution.
> > IPv6 will help here, I hope.
> I don't think this will solve the problem, it will just be a workaround for
> it.

With IPv6, I see much better chances of having more than one
address available, which would make the best architectural solution
a practical one as well.
> > > 2. Add the zone as a slave within your authoritative view. (this option 
> > > may
> > > be the easiest for your situation).
> > 
> > Not feasible as it contains dynamically generated content,
> > typically with a TTL of 0.
> this strongly indicates that there's something broken in your DNS. The DNS
> is not designed to provide anything that short-lived, the whole DNS
> architecture is based on cachind.

Yes, DNS works best with caching. I know that this setup is a
corner case and very individual (If would had two public IPs then
I would be fine)

To be a bit polemic, if you think it is wrong, TTL of 0 should be
forbidden, I suppose.
> Are you doing any kind of DNS-based load balancing?

No, then multiple A records or so would be just fine.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

bind-users mailing list

Reply via email to