bind selective delegation, is it possible?

Wael Shahin wael.shahin at
Wed Mar 28 06:49:30 UTC 2007


I have one silly question if i may, why do you need your DNS servers behind 
the load balancer?
can't you have your DNS to be autheritative and pointing the www record or 
the A record you want to the vip? or did i get that all wrong?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zachary Denison" <zacharydenison at>
To: <bind-users at>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:53 AM
Subject: bind selective delegation, is it possible?

> Hi,
> I am trying to solve a DNS problem.   I am trying to delegate my
> to another nameserver for the A record  but I still want
> the MX record to be served by the original server.  The reason for
> this is that I have load balancers and they expect to be delegated the
> NS authority for the domain of the website (so I have delegated
> with no problem)  Now the problem I am having is that I
> also want to be able to load balance  since it is
> quite common not to use the wwws nowadays.  The nameserver
> functionality on these loadbalancers is primitive and they only
> support A records.  If I put in an NS record on the master dns server
> and delegate to my load balancers, my email breaks because
> the DNS engines on the load balancers dont serve up MX records, only A
> records, but the delegation is relinquishing authority from the master
> server.  If I use a CNAME, its the same thing, it delegates the entire
> domain and the master server becomes no longer authoritative for the
> MX record.  Is there a way I can delegate to my load
> balancer for A records only but retain authority for the MX records?
> Or is there some other better way to accomplish this?
> Thank you very much.
> Zach

More information about the bind-users mailing list