> > DNS7.CP.MSFT.NET. 1d10h15m14s IN A 207.46.138.21
> > DNS6.CP.MSFT.NET. 1d10h15m14s IN A 207.46.138.20
> > DNS4.CP.MSFT.NET. 9h23m57s IN A 207.46.138.11
> > DNS5.CP.MSFT.NET. 5h48m4s IN A 207.46.138.12
>
> I'm not familiar with DNS but do like to learn. What's
> actually wrong here?
if you read any good documentation on DNS (esp. DNS & BIND from ORA) it
will tell you that DNS provides for redundancy by allowing multiple name
servers (here MS has 4).
if you want to make the DNS as reliable as possible, you should distribute
those servers on different subnets so if a router goes down or a partcular
subnet goes off the air for any reason, other name servers will still be
available.
in this case, the IPs are in the same subnet if MS is dividing on class
boundaries, or the IPs are in a maximum of 2 subnets if they are using
CIDR but they are likely to be in close physical proximity. for ultimate
redudancy they should have put them on different subnets in different
physical locations. wouldn't that be a wise decision if you are running
name service for some of the busiest internet sites (ms.com hotmail etc.)?
later
marty
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
