round-robin using cnames

[beetle bailey]

Are there any problems with having multiple A records?  All three names 
(name1, name2, name3) need to be valid as well.  Also, if you happen to know 
off the top of your head which RFC's in particular are relevant I'd like to 
check them out.  Thanks again.


>From: Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com>
>To: bind-users at isc.org
>Subject: Re: round-robin using cnames
>Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:57:53 -0400
>
>
>What you're doing violates the RFC's, so it's no wonder that it doesn't 
>work
>on some slave servers. Why not just have 3 A records for "bobo" pointing to
>the relevant IP addresses? That's the legal and reliable way to do this.
>
>
>- Kevin
>
>beetle bailey wrote:
>
> > Hello, we are using the following entries:
> > bobo     IN   CNAME   name1.dom.ain.
> >          IN   CNAME   name2.dom.ain.
> >          IN   CNAME   name3.dom.ain.
> >
> > to get a round-robin effect.  The problem we're seeing is on some slave
> > servers all queries return the same name for bobo.  A dump of named 
>shows
> > only one value for bobo (name1 for example) which I guess explains why 
>it's
> > not cycling through the different names.  Can anyone explain why that 
>is?
> > Is that a really screwed up way of trying to  achieve something close to
> > load balancing?  the master is v4.9.? whereas the slaves are all 
>v8.2.2p5.
> > Thanks for any help.
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com