DNS delegation based on both location and organization
Brad Knowles
brad at stop.mail-abuse.org
Fri Sep 9 08:53:27 UTC 2005
At 12:30 AM -0400 2005-09-09, Danny Mayer 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.
Regretfully, it's been my experience that PCs will tend to latch
onto the first IP address that is listed as a resolver for them, and
they won't ever use anything else -- until they are rebooted, and
might pick up a different IP. Those that do actually make use of
other resolvers that are configured, usually seem to have a
surprisingly high period of time that they wait for an answer from
the first one before they roll over to the next one.
So, if latency is important to your application, or you have any
of these older PCs around that only ever use the first resolver they
find, then you really do need load-balancing/high-availability
switches that you put in front of the caching resolvers, to handle
fail-over internally, etc....
At least, this is what I personally saw at AOL, and I've heard
the same kind of reports from many other admins since then, including
some relatively recent reports.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755
SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.
More information about the bind-users
mailing list