Tony Finch
Sent: February 26, 2020 10:05 AM
To: Scott A. Wozny
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: NS failover as opposed to A record failover
Scott A. Wozny wrote:
>
> Failures aside, I’m worried about creating a bad user experience EVERY
> time I need to take a DNS server dow
Subject: Re: NS failover as opposed to A record failover
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:38 PM Mark Andrews
mailto:ma...@isc.org>> wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2020, at 09:51, Scott A. Wozny
> mailto:sawo...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I know this isn’t a question ABOUT BIND, per se
Thanks very much for the feedback. I clearly have more research to do. :)
Scott
From: Mark Andrews
Sent: February 25, 2020 6:38 PM
To: Scott A. Wozny
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: NS failover as opposed to A record failover
> On 26 Feb 2
Scott A. Wozny wrote:
>
> Failures aside, I’m worried about creating a bad user experience EVERY
> time I need to take a DNS server down for patching.
I generally let resolvers handle retry/failover when I'm patching my
authoritative servers. Each resolver that encounters an authoritative
server
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:38 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > On 26 Feb 2020, at 09:51, Scott A. Wozny wrote:
> >
> > I know this isn’t a question ABOUT BIND, per se, but I think is still a
> question bind-users might have an answer to. I’ve seen various failover
> questions on the list, but nothing
> On 26 Feb 2020, at 09:51, Scott A. Wozny wrote:
>
> I know this isn’t a question ABOUT BIND, per se, but I think is still a
> question bind-users might have an answer to. I’ve seen various failover
> questions on the list, but nothing that talks specifically about NS records
> (at least not
I know this isn’t a question ABOUT BIND, per se, but I think is still a
question bind-users might have an answer to. I’ve seen various failover
questions on the list, but nothing that talks specifically about NS records (at
least nothing in the last decade), so I thought I’d inquire here.
I’m
7 matches
Mail list logo
