Multiple CNAMEs and Bind 9
Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Tue Nov 19 04:21:18 UTC 2002
>
>
> --- Simon Waters <Simon at wretched.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > being against RFCs. Could someone point me to the RFC(s) that the
> > > CNAMEs violate, and if possible the line(s) which point that out.
> >
> > RFC1034
> Thanks, I spent the last 3 months trying to figure that out.
>
> > > is there any other way to do the weighting?
> >
> > BIND 9 does random starting records with same ordering by
> > default, and I don't think there is an easy DNS based way within
> > BIND 9 to achieve the same effect.
> >
> > Load balancing has been discussed extensively in the archive,
> > with lots of different ideas, although a lot depends what you
> > are trying to do. Dynamic DNS offers the option to remove
> > overworked or dead servers.
> >
> Say I have a server on a t3 and one on a t1. I want the t3 to get 2/3
> the traffic, and the t1 to get the remaining third. Or, for another
> example, 2 t3's get 4/5, and the t1 get the last fifth. I'm trying to
> weight out the load based on what the servers can handle. Up until 9
> was released, I used Multiple CNAMEs to do this. Perhaps there could
> be something server side to handle this, but all slaves would ned to
> have support for it.
SRV is designed to allow multiple servers with different
weightings. It can be used where CNAMES can't but does require
client side support.
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com
>
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews at isc.org
More information about the bind-users
mailing list