DNS delegation based on both location and organization

Danny Mayer mayer at gis.net
Fri Sep 9 04:30:09 UTC 2005


Brad Knowles wrote:
> 
>> - I need local resolution and redundancy (I even need load balancers
>>      for the quickest response time and highest availability)
> 
You don't really need load balancers for DNS since the architecture of 
DNS is by its nature distributed. Load Balancers for DNS are a waste of 
money and effort.

> 	But keep in mind that you don't want to list too many 
> authoritative servers (typically no more than four or five), because 
> you don't want to cause the responses you hand out to exceed the 
> 512-byte limitation of typical DNS responses via the UDP protocol. 
> Trust me, you do *not* want to know what kind of weirdness tends to 
> manifest itself when you start causing truncation, which results in 
> DNS queries having to be re-tried with TCP, etc....
> 

On this one I do trust you! It was not what you did but what was done to 
  the DNS Servers that caused the problems.

Danny



More information about the bind-users mailing list