On 3/7/2012 10:49 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > Olaf Kolkman <[email protected]> wrote: >> But you could reasonably ask whether those load balancing properties >> should be under the control of the authoritative or the recursive name >> server. > Indeed :-) > > The problem with saying it must only be the authority's job is that in > situations like ours (which being a university is I guess not that > different from Thijs's) the user population do not use very many different > resolvers, so the authorities do not get the opportunity to serve up lots > of different RR set orderings, unless you go for ridiculously short TTLs.
Since the order of RRs in a set is not significant, then load balancing through the use of multiple RRs at a name could only be an attempt to evenly distribute between addresses/hosts. Randomization of records within a set at the resolver level will only improve the even distribution between hosts. [RFC 1034] 3.6. Resource Records A domain name identifies a node. Each node has a set of resource information, which may be empty. The set of resource information associated with a particular name is composed of separate resource records (RRs). The order of RRs in a set is not significant, and need not be preserved by name servers, resolvers, or other parts of the DNS. Those who desire finer control over weight for hosts in load balancing need to implement this through SRV records - which provide this functionality... and then join the crowd complaining to those who make clients that don't support SRV records. -DMM _______________________________________________ Unbound-users mailing list [email protected] http://unbound.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/unbound-users
