go wrong when the link starts bouncing or is intermittent which
IGRP and ASN can handle transparently.
IMHO trying to solve this via DNS is really complicating the issue far greater
than it needs to be.
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:46:23 +0530
Subject: Can I have Inbound load balancing achieved
Phil Mayers wrote the following on 11/14/2013 2:39 AM:
On 13/11/13 22:21, Carl Byington wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 16:49 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
It means that users will have to wait for an arbitrary
number of timeouts before the browser
In article mailman.1686.1384528769.20661.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
Phil Mayers wrote the following on 11/14/2013 2:39 AM:
I think there are better solutions than publishing an enormous list of
A/ records, personally, and I think it's good that browser
On 13/11/13 22:21, Carl Byington wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 16:49 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
It means that users will have to wait for an arbitrary
number of timeouts before the browser can give them an error message.
Well, the browser
On 2013-11-13 00:16, Manish Rane wrote:
...
6.Assume if ISP1 goes down, client coming on ISP1 would never be able
to reach; hence as per DNS protocol will try for another link and
come
on ISP2 and then probably get an IP address of Link 2 i.e. 2.2.2.2.
...
I'm not sure about your DNS setup,
In message aa8b9ac38f81c0220a198ff58ebca...@tux.org, Joseph S D Yao writes:
On 2013-11-13 00:16, Manish Rane wrote:
...
6.Assume if ISP1 goes down, client coming on ISP1 would never be able
to reach; hence as per DNS protocol will try for another link and
come
on ISP2 and then probably
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 16:49 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
It means that users will have to wait for an arbitrary
number of timeouts before the browser can give them an error message.
Well, the browser *could* of course give a message like I have
In message barmar-68ebd7.16491213112...@news.eternal-september.org, Barry Mar
golin writes:
In article mailman.1658.1384379072.20661.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
No, there is no such requirement. The browsers are just BROKEN if
they don't try all the
On 2013-11-13 16:44, Mark Andrews wrote:
...
RFC 1123 (October 1989) applies to all applications on all hosts.
Note SHOULD and until.
...
Mark, I've always read SHOULD here as more of a plaintive hope than
anything else. People have certainly felt free to ignore it. Yes, that
makes their
In message 661ca5ab225cad04bdcc3831c6964...@tux.org, Joseph S D Yao writes:
On 2013-11-13 16:44, Mark Andrews wrote:
...
RFC 1123 (October 1989) applies to all applications on all hosts.
Note SHOULD and until.
...
Mark, I've always read SHOULD here as more of a plaintive hope than
Hey Fellas,
I am thinking on this perspective need some help on this. Please guide me
if I am wrong or let me know if I can achieve the stuff
1. I have a firewall with TWO ISP links, lets assume ISP1 and ISP2. And
then I have internal webserver www.foobar.com with IP 192.168.1.10
2. I have
11 matches
Mail list logo
