AW: How to get random subset of large rrset (30+ IPs for round robin)?

Von: bind-users im Auftrag von Warren Kumari Gesendet: Freitag, 20. März 2020 18:15 An: bind-users Betreff: Re: How to get random subset of large rrset (30+ IPs for round robin)? On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 1:04 PM Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > >On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 3:14

Re: How to get random subset of large rrset (30+ IPs for round robin)?

ese addresses have to be returned in random order round robin, >> which is done with: >> Now I'd like bind to just return a random subset of e.g. 5 IP addresses >> if someone requests this A record. On 20.03.20 10:37, Warren Kumari wrote: >I realize that this is the BIND

Re: How to get random subset of large rrset (30+ IPs for round robin)?

It's incredibly hacky, but what about setting different nameservers with different sets of addresses for the FQDN in question? -- Fred ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users

Re: How to get random subset of large rrset (30+ IPs for round robin)?

> On 21 Mar 2020, at 04:22, Bob Harold wrote: > > Do you know why the OS is having a problem? It just occurs to me that the > problem might be that the result does not fit in a UDP packet, (without > EDNS?) and the fallback to TCP is not working. Can you try 'dig ...' and > 'dig +tcp ...'

Re: How to get random subset of large rrset (30+ IPs for round robin)?

it only returns a random subset of all these IPs. I question if you need "random" or if "round robin" (rotating) would work. Do they need to be truly random? Or would simply circulating a (possibly randomized) list suffice? Has someone an idea on how to achieve the latter?

Re: How to get random subset of large rrset (30+ IPs for round robin)?

time > > >> in research - maybe you guys have an idea: > > >> > > >> With bind, I'd need to serve a single A record with 30+ IP > addresses and > > >> these addresses have to be returned in random order round robin, > > >> which i

Re: How to get random subset of large rrset (30+ IPs for round robin)?

gt;> With bind, I'd need to serve a single A record with 30+ IP addresses and > >> these addresses have to be returned in random order round robin, > >> which is done with: > > >> Now I'd like bind to just return a random subset of e.g. 5 IP addresses > >>

Re: How to get random subset of large rrset (30+ IPs for round robin)?

order round robin, which is done with: Now I'd like bind to just return a random subset of e.g. 5 IP addresses if someone requests this A record. On 20.03.20 10:37, Warren Kumari wrote: I realize that this is the BIND list, but this sounds like an almost perfect example of PowerDNS's LUA record

Re: How to get random subset of large rrset (30+ IPs for round robin)?

gt; these addresses have to be returned in random order round robin, > which is done with: > > rrset-order { order random; }; > > and records like: > > foo IN A 10.0.0.1 > foo IN A 10.0.0.2 > foo IN A 10...N > > Now I'd like bind to just return a ra

Re: How to get random subset of large rrset (30+ IPs for round robin)?

ollowing although I invested plenty of time > in research - maybe you guys have an idea: > > With bind, I'd need to serve a single A record with 30+ IP addresses and > these addresses have to be returned in random order round robin, > which is done with: > > rrset-order {

How to get random subset of large rrset (30+ IPs for round robin)?

Hi, I can't find a way to do the following although I invested plenty of time in research - maybe you guys have an idea: With bind, I'd need to serve a single A record with 30+ IP addresses and these addresses have to be returned in random order round robin, which is done with: rrset

Re: round-robin bug in 9.12.1-P2 for rDNS?

> > This sounds a bit like #336 [1], > > Nope - we got bit by that when we upgraded > to 9.12, which is what resulted in the explicit > config for rrset-order. > > > If you can still reproduce this with current > > master (or with current v9_12 branch), please > > open a new GitLab issue. > >

Re: round-robin bug in 9.12.1-P2 for rDNS?

Hi Michał, Thanks for the ack. > This sounds a bit like #336 [1], Nope - we got bit by that when we upgraded to 9.12, which is what resulted in the explicit config for rrset-order. > If you can still reproduce this with current > master (or with current v9_12 branch), please > open a new

Re: round-robin bug in 9.12.1-P2 for rDNS?

> I have a funny issue that looks buggish > to me. I have an RRSET with two > A records that our auth DNS servers happily > round-robin, which can be observed with > > dig unix.lt.ucsc.edu @adns1.ucsc.edu > > However, our recursive DNS servers, with > the same rrset-

round-robin bug in 9.12.1-P2 for rDNS?

Hi folks, I have a funny issue that looks buggish to me. I have an RRSET with two A records that our auth DNS servers happily round-robin, which can be observed with dig unix.lt.ucsc.edu @adns1.ucsc.edu However, our recursive DNS servers, with the same rrset-order config will not round-robin

Re: Round-robin

Perfect ! thanks. -- Sent from: http://bind-users-forum.2342410.n4.nabble.com/ ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org

Re: Round-robin

You can use BIND's RRSET Order for this, http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch7/queries.html#rrset-order On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 4:37 PM, gsi wrote: > Hello, > > I have 2 A records like this : > wwwA10.1.1.1 > wwwA10.1.1.2 > > When I request www,

Round-robin

Hello, I have 2 A records like this : wwwA10.1.1.1 wwwA10.1.1.2 When I request www, I got random answers (10.1.1.1 or 10.1.1.2) If I use the sortlist option, I always got the same answer. My question : how can I have cyclic answers : request www -->

DNS connection refused : round-robin pools

ISP public forwarders. fast, redundant, privacy-challenged (Google, OpenDNS, ATT, etc). Reading the Arm chatting in #irc IIUC 'forwarders' are NOT queried in order listed, and there's no option to set priority, failover, round-robin etc. I'm requesting such a feature. For example, Forwaders

RE: DNS connection refused : round-robin pools

-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Int Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 5:41 PM To: bind-users@lists.isc.org Cc: n...@eml.cc Subject: DNS connection refused : round-robin pools Importance: High I do not have access to Internet in my case, only have access to a national VPN, As I can disable

BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools

, redundant, privacy-challenged (Google, OpenDNS, ATT, etc). Reading the Arm chatting in #irc IIUC 'forwarders' are NOT queried in order listed, and there's no option to set priority, failover, round-robin etc. I'm requesting such a feature. For example, Forwaders would be queried in order

Re: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools

Hi On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote: Forwarders are selected based on an RTT(round-trip-time)-based algorithm There's an invalid presumption there -- that 'fastest' == 'most desired / highest priority'. Regardless of any specific case, the requested feature

Re: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools

Am 24.08.2015 um 20:19 schrieb n...@eml.cc: On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote: Forwarders are selected based on an RTT(round-trip-time)-based algorithm There's an invalid presumption there -- that 'fastest' == 'most desired / highest priority'. Regardless of

RE: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools

-Original Message- From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of n...@eml.cc Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 1:49 PM To: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools I run bind 9.10.2-P3. I

RE: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools

, August 24, 2015 2:19 PM To: Darcy Kevin (FCA); bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Re: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools Hi On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote: Forwarders are selected based on an RTT(round-trip-time)-based algorithm There's

Re: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote: So, if your link is saturated to the point that you can't hold up a VPN connection reliably, you fall back to an less-secure method of resolution? No. Non-deterministic security, what a concept! Didn't take long for you to resort

Re: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools

On 8/24/15 3:09 PM, n...@eml.cc wrote: On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote: So, if your link is saturated to the point that you can't hold up a VPN connection reliably, you fall back to an less-secure method of resolution? No. Actually, yes. That's pretty much

Re: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools

Am 24.08.2015 um 21:09 schrieb n...@eml.cc: On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote: So, if your link is saturated to the point that you can't hold up a VPN connection reliably, you fall back to an less-secure method of resolution? No. YES but you maybe don't realize

Re: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools

Somehow all that ^ puffery translates into NOT wanting to allow the user to prioritize the use of forwarders the way they want? Um, ok ... ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users

RE: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools

: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools Somehow all that ^ puffery translates into NOT wanting to allow the user to prioritize the use of forwarders the way they want? Um, ok ... ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman

Re: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools

On 8/24/15 3:21 PM, n...@eml.cc wrote: Somehow all that ^ puffery translates into NOT wanting to allow the user to prioritize the use of forwarders the way they want? You are trying to use forwarders in a way that they are not intended, and is not a good idea. That is the translation of all of

Re: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools

-users-boun...@lists.isc.org [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.o rg] On Behalf Of n...@eml.cc Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 3:21 PM To: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Re: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority round-robin pools Somehow all that ^ puffery translates into NOT wanting

Do TLD glue records support round robin replies?

Folks, Our normal procedure when changing the IP address of a TLD name server is to get the new server responding properly and then update the glue records with the Registrar to reflect the new address, normally 1-2 days apart for two nameservers. We monitor query traffic on

Re: Do TLD glue records support round robin replies?

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:34 AM, MURTARI, JOHN jm5...@att.com wrote: Folks, Our normal procedure when changing the IP address of a TLD name server is to get the new server responding properly and then update the glue records with the Registrar to reflect the new address,

Disable SRTT and enable round-robin for forwarders

slow down the traffic to that DNS. And a followup question, is there a simple configuration change I can do to tell bind to ignore srtt values and simply round-robin across a list of DNS that I provide? Thank you in advance for your help. Cheers, Stephen Wood

bind weighted round robin not working

Hi, I’ve got a problem getting weighted round robin dns to work. What I need is ip adress 1 getting twice the hits of ip address 2, however making multiple entries of ip address 1 in my zonefile (according to https://lists.isc.org/mailman/htdig/bind-users/2007-April/066196.html ) does not seem

Re: bind weighted round robin not working

That doesn't work with recent versions. BIND discards the duplicates. -Ben Croswell On Jul 16, 2011 4:28 PM, d...@cornholio.nl wrote: Hi, I’ve got a problem getting weighted round robin dns to work. What I need is ip adress 1 getting twice the hits of ip address 2, however making multiple

Re: bind weighted round robin not working

On 07/16/2011 13:10, d...@cornholio.nl wrote: I’ve got a problem getting weighted round robin dns to work. What I need is ip adress 1 getting twice the hits of ip address 2, As you were told that's not going to work. What you could do is add an additional IP address as an alias on the interface

Re: Round robin DNS query response

Is there a way to make BIND respond DNS query in sequence? Someone else can probably give a more authoritative answer. My understanding is that BIND will rotate the answers it gives out when there's more than one similar record in a rrset. And yes, this can help spread the load a bit. Whether

Re: Round robin DNS query response

-robin+sortlist Option B: views Appropriate caveats for each approach. Note that if these are Windows clients on the same subnets as the www.example.com addresses, you could probably just get away with a plain old round-robin and rely on the built-in Windows subnet prioritization, see http

Round robin DNS query response

Hi everyone... I am rather new to the world of DNS so I¹m hoping to get some of your expertise... Is there a way to make BIND respond DNS query in sequence? For example, if I assign 2 IP addresses to an A record, is it possible to have it respond like... Client 1 for www.example.com -

Re: one DNS names to multiple IP Addresses(Round Robin DNS)

Anybody can help to explain the side effect of configuring the DNS name to multiple IP addresses(Round Robin DNS). If you're planning to use it for load sharing, then the effect is very basic - requests get shared equally among the addresses irrespective of load on the target system

Re: one DNS names to multiple IP Addresses(Round Robin DNS)

On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 05:47:34PM +0100, Sam Wilson wrote: In article mailman.450.1252511223.14796.bind-us...@lists.isc.org, Balanagaraju Munukutla 9ba...@sg.ibm.com wrote: Hi Anybody can help to explain the side effect of configuring the DNS name to multiple IP addresses(Round Robin

Re: rDNS Round-Robin

I've found the confirmation I was looking for in RFC 2181 section 10.2. Does this seem to confirm that round-robin PTR's are perfectly legal? yes, they are perfectly legal. However I don't know about any application that would require nor benefit of them, and I don't recommend using them

Re: rDNS Round-Robin

:02, Bryan Irvine wrote: I've think I've found the confirmation I was looking for in RFC 2181 section 10.2. Does this seem to confirm that round-robin PTR's are perfectly legal? yes, they are perfectly legal. However I don't know about any application that would require nor benefit

Re: rDNS Round-Robin

there a valid reason for rr rDNS? Once upon a time, BIND specifically *disabled* round-robin behavior for non-address (A/) record types. PTR RRsets, among other types, were always given in a fixed order. But, I just tried a quick test, and it appears that round-robin has been re

Re: rDNS Round-Robin

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Kevin Darcyk...@chrysler.com wrote: Bryan Irvine wrote: Other than to really annoy me;  is there a valid reason for rr rDNS? Once upon a time, BIND specifically *disabled* round-robin behavior for non-address (A/) record types. PTR RRsets, among other

Re: rDNS Round-Robin

specifically *disabled* round-robin behavior for non-address (A/) record types. PTR RRsets, among other types, were always given in a fixed order. But, I just tried a quick test, and it appears that round-robin has been re-enabled for PTRs. Accident? I have no idea why anyone would want

rDNS Round-Robin

Other than to really annoy me; is there a valid reason for rr rDNS? -Bryan ___ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: rDNS Round-Robin

Bryan Irvine wrote: Other than to really annoy me; is there a valid reason for rr rDNS? Once upon a time, BIND specifically *disabled* round-robin behavior for non-address (A/) record types. PTR RRsets, among other types, were always given in a fixed order. But, I just tried a quick

Re: Round robin load distribution among servers does not work properly

In message 96c8e9660904071112p557840a4kfd85120d7c275...@mail.gmail.com, Mallappa Pallakke writes: Hi Mark/Kevin, I did the changes you suggested and it worked fine. Thanks a lot for all your help. Regarding round-robin load sharing instead of random, I have planned

Re: Round robin load distribution among servers does not work properly

* Mallappa Pallakke: Can anybody tell me why this limitation and is there any sollution to resove this problem? Does your dig call result in two lookups behind the scenes, perhaps? ___ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org

Round robin load distribution among servers does not work properly

Hi,  I tried with 9.5.1.P2, but still I am not getting the expected round robin results:  Please see below my named.conf and zone file: named.conf: = options {        directory /var/named;        // Uncommenting this might help if you have to go through a        // firewall and things

Re: Round robin load distribution among servers does not work properly

In message 96c8e9660904061734t61414549o22a535e681f58...@mail.gmail.com, Mallappa Pallakke writes: Hi, I tried with 9.5.1.P2, but still I am not getting the expected round robin results: Please see below my named.conf and zone file: named.conf: = options

Re: Round robin load distribution among servers does not work properly

Hi Mark, I do not see any additional section in the response. Can you please tell me what exactly you are asking me to change? I selected cyclic instead of random since I want my client requests to go to servers in exactly round-robin order. Please tell is there anything wrong

Re: Round robin DNS and only one record?

Dustin Lovell wrote: Certain browsers hitting our web application don't like having two A-records handed to them (I'm still in the process of figuring out why), Yeah, you really need to dig into that further, since we have *hundreds* of multi-A-record names, and we've never run into any

Round robin DNS and only one record?

Greetings all. Is it possible to set up BIND in such a way that if there are multiple A-records for a specific host, instead of returning all of them in response to a request and only changing the order with every second request, the server only returns one A-record, and varies that A-record

Re: Round robin DNS and only one record?

In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dustin Lovell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Certain browsers hitting our web application don't like having two A-records handed to them (I'm still in the process of figuring out why), and much prefer the first example above. Really? So these browsers can't access