DNS delegation based on both location and organization

cmic cmic at caramail.com
Fri Sep 9 05:31:44 UTC 2005


Danny Mayer a =E9crit :

> 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.
>
Hum. Surprise. I understand that the distributed arch. of DNS is a
"reliable" one, but I thought (as a non-expert DNS admin) thet load
balancing for DNS was usefull to allow *one* server (say the
auhoritative one) to answer more queries/second. Something like
multiply the power of *this* server. Am I right ?

--
cmic|at|caramail|dot|com
Sysadmin Un*x & Wind...
> > 	But keep in mind that you don't want to list too many=20
.=2E.
> Danny



More information about the bind-users mailing list