[ Classification Level: GENERAL BUSINESS ]
Duplicate RRs are suppressed, as per the standards.
RFC 2181, Section 5:
Each DNS Resource Record (RR) has a label, class, type, and data. It
is meaningless for two records to ever have label, class, type and
data all equal - servers should suppr
Hello everyone,
There is a round robin resolving mechanism in bind9 where the server
chooses different records to resolve for each request, but is there a way
to assign weights so that the server resolves with different probabilities?
All I could find about the topic was this old mail from the ar
Am 12.09.2019 um 17:39 schrieb Roberto Carna:
Hi people, is it possible to setup BIND in order to implement GSLB
(Global Service Load Balancing) between two sites ?
I need a near Active-Active scenario between two datacenters in
different locations, and I want to do this with an open source
k Architect | Bell
> Canada*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* bind-users [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Blason R
> *Sent:* September-12-19 10:22 PM
> *To:* Roberto Carna
> *Cc:* bind-users
> *Subject:* [EXT]Re: BIND setup for GSLB (Global Service Loa
-users [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Blason R
Sent: September-12-19 10:22 PM
To: Roberto Carna
Cc: bind-users
Subject: [EXT]Re: BIND setup for GSLB (Global Service Load Balancing)
Well there are other cheaper Solutions are available like from Array network or
peplink they can
in order to implement GSLB (Global
> Service Load Balancing) between two sites ?
>
> I need a near Active-Active scenario between two datacenters in
> different locations, and I want to do this with an open source solution.
>
> Thank
> Hi people, is it possible to setup BIND in order to implement GSLB
> (Global Service Load Balancing) between two sites ?
> >
> > I need a near Active-Active scenario between two datacenters in
> different locations, and I want to do
> Hi people, is it possible to setup BIND in order to implement GSLB (Global
> Service Load Balancing) between two sites ?
>
> I need a near Active-Active scenario between two datacenters in different
> locations, and I want to do this with an open source solution.
>
>
Hi people, is it possible to setup BIND in order to implement GSLB (Global
Service Load Balancing) between two sites ?
I need a near Active-Active scenario between two datacenters in
different locations, and I want to do this with an open source solution.
Thanks a lot !
Roberto
On 2/20/19 10:22 AM, Alan Clegg wrote:
> On 2/20/19 7:55 AM, Roberto Carna wrote:
>
>> DNS clients send a UDP query to a DNS server, if no response is received
>> until some seconds, then they try with UDP.
>> You tell me this is not true, just clients try with UDP is the response
>> is truncated.
On 2/20/19 7:55 AM, Roberto Carna wrote:
> DNS clients send a UDP query to a DNS server, if no response is received
> until some seconds, then they try with UDP.
> You tell me this is not true, just clients try with UDP is the response
> is truncated.
Tony is correct, the first paragraph above IS
Roberto Carna wrote:
Can you confirm thgis is true in 100% of clients???
On 20.02.19 14:11, Tony Finch wrote:
It's true of clients that follow the spec.
I would like to add that the spec mentions there mey be clients that use
only TCP.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http:/
Roberto Carna wrote:
>
> Can you confirm thgis is true in 100% of clients???
It's true of clients that follow the spec.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Rattray Head to Berwick upon Tweed: South or southwest 4 or 5, occasionally 6
at first. Slight or moderate, occasionally rough a
.html
>
> > The DNS clients are a mix of Windows, Cisco and Linux machines, so I
> > think they ask for a FQDN using UDP and after that -if there is no
> > response-, they ask the same FQDN using TCP, and so the load balancing
> > will be succesful.
>
> No, fallbac
On 19-Feb-2019 20:00 CET, wrote:
> Agree with Tony on TCP not going to be tried. Have you looked at using
> anycast? It is not true load balancing but it allows you to stand up
> multiple DNS servers that “shares” a single IP address.
or just use a software load-balancer which has been
standards on the
subject.
- Kevin
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 2:01 PM Josh Kuo wrote:
> Agree with Tony on TCP not going to be tried. Have you looked at using
> anycast? It is not true load balancing but it allows you to stand up
> multip
Agree with Tony on TCP not going to be tried. Have you looked at using
anycast? It is not true load balancing but it allows you to stand up
multiple DNS servers that “shares” a single IP address.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 12:25 AM Tony Finch wrote:
> Roberto Carna wrote:
>
> > Dea
ask the same FQDN using TCP, and so the load balancing
> will be succesful.
No, fallback to TCP relies on receiving a truncated UDP response. You
never want a DNS client to be waiting around for a response that will
not arrive.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Rockall, Malin: So
Dear, I have to balance two DNS servers for a special reason.
I need your comments please:
1) If I use HAProxy for DNS load balancing, this software only works with
TCP protocol (not UDP). The DNS clients are a mix of Windows, Cisco and
Linux machines, so I think they ask for a FQDN using UDP
alf of the web page not read).
If you want failover, I recommend L3 switch like linux ipvs or similar.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:01 PM SIMON BABY wrote:
Are we support load balancing with latest DNSSEC ? I have a DNSSEC
application with unbound library. Do i have to add any extra configurat
On 09/18/2018 04:12 PM, SIMON BABY wrote:
Are we support this with our current release?
BIND has supported round robin DNS for a long time.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Please visit https:
SIMON
> BABY
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2018 4:39 PM
> *To:* Warren Kumari
> *Cc:* bind-users@lists.isc.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: load balancing
>
> Thanks Warren.
> I am looking DNS RR distribution. (DNS Round Robin Load distribution).
>
> Round robin DNS i
o mitigate/eliminate issues. just do so fully aware of the implications.
From: bind-users on behalf of SIMON BABY
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 4:39 PM
To: Warren Kumari
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: load balancing
Thanks Warren.
I am looking DNS RR distribution.
gt;> Hi,
>>
>> Are we support load balancing with latest DNSSEC ? I have a DNSSEC
>> application with unbound library. Do i have to add any extra configuration
>> to support Load Balancing?
>>
>
> Your question is sufficiently light on detail that it cannot be
&g
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:01 PM SIMON BABY wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are we support load balancing with latest DNSSEC ? I have a DNSSEC
> application with unbound library. Do i have to add any extra configuration
> to support Load Balancing?
>
Your question is sufficiently light on det
Hi,
Are we support load balancing with latest DNSSEC ? I have a DNSSEC
application with unbound library. Do i have to add any extra configuration
to support Load Balancing?
Rgds
Simon
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
On 14/04/17 22:40, McDonald, Daniel (Dan) wrote:
That works fine for test.example.com. But when I go to production, I
need to do it for example.com
As others have noted, you can't delegate a single record from the apex.
tl;dr - vendor specific, as your GSLB vendor.
There are multiple soluti
On Apr 14, 2017, at 2:40 PM, McDonald, Daniel (Dan)
wrote:
>
> Setting up global server load balancing seems easy enough – just add ns
> records pointing at the load balancer and away you go:
>
> example.com. 38400INSOAns20.exam
On Apr 14, 2017, at 2:40 PM, McDonald, Daniel (Dan)
wrote:
> Setting up global server load balancing seems easy enough – just add ns
> records pointing at the load balancer and away you go:
>
> example.com. 38400INSOAns20.example.net.
> dan\.mcdon
Setting up global server load balancing seems easy enough – just add ns records
pointing at the load balancer and away you go:
example.com. 38400INSOAns20.example.net.
dan\.mcdonald.example.com. 2017011107 10800 3600 604800 3600
example.com. 38400IN
tion
layer stuff can 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 Inbou
In article ,
Blake Hudson 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
> > manufacturers aren't blasting out 6 SYNs every time someon
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 ca
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 *could*
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 plaint
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 t
In message , Barry Mar
golin writes:
> In article ,
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > No, there is no such requirement. The browsers are just BROKEN if
> > they don't try all the offered addresses. All browsers we were
> > written after RFC 1123 was published.
>
> That attitude should probably be
-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 t
In article ,
Mark Andrews wrote:
> No, there is no such requirement. The browsers are just BROKEN if
> they don't try all the offered addresses. All browsers we were
> written after RFC 1123 was published.
That attitude should probably be moderated when interactive applications
are involved.
In message , 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 get an IP address of Link 2 i.
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,
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 natted
I once maintained two F5-BIGIP-GTM boxes a coupe of years ago, at that
time they called as F5 3DNS.
GTM does have a BIND installed, but that means nothing.
Its GSLB DNS module is not BIND, but a customized module in Linux kernel.
Among with this module there are some scheduler methods to balance
=sas@lists.isc.org
[bind-users-bounces+mike.mitchell=sas@lists.isc.org] on behalf of Manish
Rane [manish...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:28 AM
To: cindyjohns...@verizon.net; bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: Just wondering if BIND can do GLB -Global Load Balancing
On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Manish Rane wrote:
> I understand BIND by default can not work like GLB but wondering if there are
> any patches available or any other Open source software community is aware of
> who can perform such thing.
This isn't really something that BIND does well nativ
I understand BIND by default can not work like GLB but wondering if there
are any patches available or any other Open source software community is
aware of who can perform such thing.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:45 PM, wrote:
> BIND does a sort of round robin to load balance among the IPs for a
BIND does a sort of round robin to load balance among the IPs for a specific host; however, it does not monitor any health or routes and doesn't have the same capabilities as a GTM to choose what IP to answer for a name.I've worked with F5 GTM to monitor and route traffic based on health, status, l
Hi Folks,
Can BIND work as a Global Load Balancer? Or I am keen to know about
constructing GTM kindaa stuff which can monitor the health of devices and
route away traffic from failed ones by putting lower TTL value? I believe
F5 3DNS does the same thing?
___
In message
, jagan padhi writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to configure BIND for IPV4 and IPV6 in the same server?
>
> Regards,
> Jagan
Yes. listen-on-v6 { any; };
By default it use both IPv4 and IPv6 when recursing.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
P
-Original Message-
From: jagan padhi
Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:21 PM
To: DNS BIND
Subject: Re: transparent DNS load-balancing with a Cisco ACE
>Hi,
>
>Is it possible to configure BIND for IPV4 and IPV6 in the same server?
>
>Regards,
>Jagan
Yes, we'v
Hi,
Is it possible to configure BIND for IPV4 and IPV6 in the same server?
Regards,
Jagan
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:35 PM, John Miller wrote:
> Thanks, Phil. This makes perfect sense--unlike TCP, there's nothing
> inherent in UDP to make sure that packets come back from the right IP.
>
> T
Thanks, Phil. This makes perfect sense--unlike TCP, there's nothing
inherent in UDP to make sure that packets come back from the right IP.
Thank you also for explaining this in terms of the socket APIs. This is
something I've only barely touched on--time for me to play around a bit
and write
On 10/19/2012 07:25 PM, John Miller wrote:
Here's a question, however: how does one get probes working for a
transparent LB setup? If an rserver listens for connections on all
interfaces, then probes work fine, but return traffic from the uses the
machine's default IP (not the VIP that was orig
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Swiger
Date: Friday, October 19, 2012 5:09 PM
To: John Miller
Cc: DNS BIND
Subject: Re: transparent DNS load-balancing with a Cisco ACE
>>
>> We're on a /16, so we have plenty of public IPs (though not as many as
>>you!) to play
Hi--
On Oct 19, 2012, at 1:04 PM, John Miller wrote:
>> IMO, the only boxes which should have IPs in both public and private
>> netblocks should be your firewall/NAT routing boxes.
>
> That's how we usually have our servers set up--the load balancer gets the
> public IPs, the servers get the pr
Thanks Daniel. Good to hear of someone using NAT for DNS traffic. My
fears of it are mostly performance-based--every DNS query takes up a new
entry in the ACE's NAT table. In our case, that's thousands of queries
per second that the ACE has to keep in memory. I've shown it to be a
slight (2
appropriately to handle DNS
> traffic. So far, I've gotten it working using NAT (each rserver has a
> public and a private IP) and using transparent load-balancing (ACE talks
> directly to the public IP), aka direct server return.
I've not bothered with nat - just place rserve
IMO, the only boxes which should have IPs in both public and private netblocks
should be your firewall/NAT routing boxes.
That's how we usually have our servers set up--the load balancer gets
the public IPs, the servers get the private IPs, and we use NAT to
translate between the two.
Here
appropriately to handle DNS traffic.
> So far, I've gotten it working using NAT (each rserver has a public and a
> private IP) and using transparent load-balancing (ACE talks directly to the
> public IP), aka direct server return.
IMO, the only boxes which should have IPs in bo
T (each rserver has a
public and a private IP) and using transparent load-balancing (ACE talks
directly to the public IP), aka direct server return.
Here's a question, however: how does one get probes working for a
transparent LB setup? If an rserver listens for connections on all
int
On 3/9/12 8:39 AM, "Phil Mayers" wrote:
> On 09/03/12 16:23, Matthew Huff wrote:
>> Anyone have any suggestions/best practices/config examples for DNS load
>> balancing for internal use on CISCO ACE blades?
>>
>> I¹ve got the standard example working, but
On 09/03/12 16:23, Matthew Huff wrote:
Anyone have any suggestions/best practices/config examples for DNS load
balancing for internal use on CISCO ACE blades?
I’ve got the standard example working, but wondered about keepalive
frequency, timeouts, fragments, etc…
Anyone got any examples they
Anyone have any suggestions/best practices/config examples for DNS load
balancing for internal use on CISCO ACE blades?
I've got the standard example working, but wondered about keepalive
frequency, timeouts, fragments, etc.
Anyone got any examples they use that they could
get two IP addresses as a reply and they always appear by turns. Am I
correct, that setup like this provides redundancy as well as
load-balancing?
Kind of. It's much better to have real load-balancing and vailover by
multiple links or L3 load balancers.
Is there some common method in BIND
.com", I always
> >get two IP addresses as a reply and they always appear by turns. Am I
> >correct, that setup like this provides redundancy as well as
> >load-balancing?
>
> Kind of. It's much better to have real load-balancing and vailover by
> multiple links
In message <20111221083337.gb5...@fantomas.sk>, Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes:
> >In message <2011122018.ga3...@fantomas.sk>, Matus UHLAR - fantomas write
> s:
> >> Long time ago when we were trying to have multiple web servers for
> >> redundancy and balancing, we have found that multiple IP'
In message <2011122018.ga3...@fantomas.sk>, Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes:
Long time ago when we were trying to have multiple web servers for
redundancy and balancing, we have found that multiple IP's is not a
good solution (parts of web pages didn't load). We selected L3
switches then...
O
network. In case I execute "host www..com", I always
> >get two IP addresses as a reply and they always appear by turns. Am I
> >correct, that setup like this provides redundancy as well as
> >load-balancing?
>
> Kind of. It's much better to have real load-balanci
turns. Am I
correct, that setup like this provides redundancy as well as
load-balancing?
Kind of. It's much better to have real load-balancing and vailover by
multiple links or L3 load balancers.
Is there some common method in BIND to give out IP
addresses by turns? Last but no
I always
> get two IP addresses as a reply and they always appear by turns. Am I
> correct, that setup like this provides redundancy as well as
> load-balancing? Is there some common method in BIND to give out IP
> addresses by turns? Last but not least, how do application layer(for
like this provides redundancy as well as
load-balancing? Is there some common method in BIND to give out IP
addresses by turns? Last but not least, how do application layer(for
example www, ssh) handle such setup?
regards,
martin
___
Please visit https://lis
>>> On 31/05/11 09:28, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This problem could be avoided by providing the same data, but differently
sorted, correct?
>>
>> On 31.05.11 12:27, Phil Mayers wrote:
>>> Not really. Client side sorting may take place (e.g. to comply with RFC
>>> 3484 policies in call
On 01/06/11 08:11, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 31/05/11 09:28, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This problem could be avoided by providing the same data, but differently
sorted, correct?
On 31.05.11 12:27, Phil Mayers wrote:
Not really. Client side sorting may take place (e.g. to comply wit
On 5/31/2011 7:39 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
It is still a bad idea. Fixing the clients so they work well with
multi-homed servers not only works today with mostly IPv4 servers
but also works well with dual stack server and IPv6 only servers.
You don't have to have artifially low TTLs on the DNS r
> On 31/05/11 09:28, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> This problem could be avoided by providing the same data, but differently
>> sorted, correct?
On 31.05.11 12:27, Phil Mayers wrote:
> Not really. Client side sorting may take place (e.g. to comply with RFC
> 3484 policies in calls to getaddri
On 31/05/11 09:28, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This problem could be avoided by providing the same data, but differently
sorted, correct?
Not really. Client side sorting may take place (e.g. to comply with RFC
3484 policies in calls to getaddrinfo) and destroy any server-side sorting.
___
> In message <4de43e3e.2040...@chrysler.com>, Kevin Darcy writes:
> > Normally I'd defer to your vastly greater knowledge and experience in
> > DNSSEC, but here in the U.S. we have a saying "I'm from Missouri", which
> > is a roundabout way of expressing "show me" ("Show Me" being the
> > unoffi
In message <4de43e3e.2040...@chrysler.com>, Kevin Darcy writes:
> Normally I'd defer to your vastly greater knowledge and experience in
> DNSSEC, but here in the U.S. we have a saying "I'm from Missouri", which
> is a roundabout way of expressing "show me" ("Show Me" being the
> unofficial slog
Normally I'd defer to your vastly greater knowledge and experience in
DNSSEC, but here in the U.S. we have a saying "I'm from Missouri", which
is a roundabout way of expressing "show me" ("Show Me" being the
unofficial slogan of the state of Missouri). Maybe it *should* work, but
when it comes
In message <4de42bef.3050...@chrysler.com>, Kevin Darcy writes:
> Get back to us when you prove that this co-exists with DNSSEC; otherwise
> it's a non-starter. While you're at it, some data proving that this
> actually enhances performance or availability would be nice too.
On further examinat
It is still a bad idea. Fixing the clients so they work well with
multi-homed servers not only works today with mostly IPv4 servers
but also works well with dual stack server and IPv6 only servers.
You don't have to have artifially low TTLs on the DNS responses.
You get sub-second failover on ne
Get back to us when you prove that this co-exists with DNSSEC; otherwise
it's a non-starter. While you're at it, some data proving that this
actually enhances performance or availability would be nice too.
Hello,
I am reading this mailing as a digest so sorry for the late
replies. Firstly we have been using this method for over 4 years and
I've yet not had one person tell me that they can connect to our servers
using POP3, SMPT, IMAP or WEB.
1. Mark, Regarding Chrome, my last big cr
On 30.05.11 05:12, Maren S. Leizaola wrote:
> DNS-Racing is a method of load balancing access to servers which are
> multi homed and provides lowest latency access to users and network
> resilience to ISP/routing failure.
like, RRset sorting?
> **What does it do?*
> It permits
Warren Kumari
--
Please excuse typing, etc -- This was sent from a device with a tiny keyboard.
On May 29, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <2c591af8-860d-45a5-9f3a-3603f3733...@kumari.net>, Warren Kumari
> writes:
>>
>> Um, how?
>>
>> Surely you can just sign the r
In message <2c591af8-860d-45a5-9f3a-3603f3733...@kumari.net>, Warren Kumari
writes:
>
> Um, how?
>
> Surely you can just sign the responses, same as any others?
>
> Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but this just looks like "normal"
> DNS LB...
>
> W
It depends on who is doing the modifi
Warren Kumari
--
Please excuse typing, etc -- This was sent from a device with a tiny keyboard.
On May 29, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Alan Clegg wrote:
> On 5/29/2011 5:12 PM, Maren S. Leizaola wrote:
>
>> IT is a poor man’s replacement for BGP multihoming and IP anycast.
>
>> Hey it is Free and
And if people used happy-eyeballs[1] or similar[2] in the applications
this would not be needed. Chrome already does this with their
latest browser. It uses a 300ms timer to switch to the next address.
Happy-eyeballs was primarially written to deal with broken 6to4
links but the techniques are
On 5/29/2011 5:12 PM, Maren S. Leizaola wrote:
> IT is a poor man’s replacement for BGP multihoming and IP anycast.
> Hey it is Free and you can implement it using BIND.
And you've just broken DNSSEC.
AlanC
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DNS-Racing is a method of load balancing access to servers which are
multi homed and provides lowest latency access to users and network
resilience to ISP/routing failure.
*
**What does it do?*
It permits a server which is connected to two ISPs to use the optimal
ISP when transferring data
order
I set by adding rrset-order option to the configuration file.
Do you have a clue what could be the problem?
Is it possible that the light weight resolver doesn’t
support load balancing in lwres mode?
Thanks,
Nati
___
bind-users mailing
In message , Jo
nathan Reed writes:
>
> bind 9.6.1-P2.
>
> I've dumped it to its file.
> $ sudo rndc dumpdb
> $ cat named_dump.db
> ...
> ; Unassociated entries
> ;
> ; 10.0.0.3 [srtt 610620] [flags 2000] [ttl 1721]
> ; 10.0.0.2 [srtt 16654] [flags 2000] [ttl 1721]
> ;
bind 9.6.1-P2.
I've dumped it to its file.
$ sudo rndc dumpdb
$ cat named_dump.db
...
; Unassociated entries
;
; 10.0.0.3 [srtt 610620] [flags 2000] [ttl 1721]
; 10.0.0.2 [srtt 16654] [flags 2000] [ttl 1721]
; 10.0.0.1 [srtt 375289] [flags 2000] [ttl 1721]
...
So I c
A long time ago it used to be in turn, but all current versions of BIND
sort the forwarders based on a preference value (SRTT) that's derived
from the RTT of previous query/query response interactions, with a 'time
since we last tried this server' incorporated so that servers that
aren't top of the
I have the forwarders statement to fwd queries to a few DNS servers on my
LAN.
forwarders { 10.0.0.1;
10.0.0.2;
10.0.0.3; }
The bind documentation says that these fwders are queried "in turn", but
what exactly does that mean? I understand it to mean tha
95 matches
Mail list logo
