bind selective delegation, is it possible?

[Wael Shahin]

Hello,
now, you have three load balancers = 3 vips? right?
did you think of round-robin the three load balancers with DNS?
in this case you will still have the DNS as authoritative

so it would be something like:

@            in    a    vip1
                in    a    vip2
                in    a    vip3
www        in    a    vip1
                in    a    vip2
                in    a    vip3

am not sure why you need to have your load balancer to be the authoritative 
for the domain but in anyway, if you have an implementation such as the 
above why should you care for what the load balancer thinks? if it should be 
authoritative for the zone so be it no one is actually going to ask them for 
name resolving, instead they will be hitting the vip directly

for the list to correct me if am wrong

Wael

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zachary Denison" <zacharydenison at gmail.com>
To: "Wael Shahin" <wael.shahin at gmail.com>
Cc: <bind-users at isc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: bind selective delegation, is it possible?


> Because there are more than 1 load balancer, so there is not 1 vip to
> point to.  The functionality I want is:
>
> www.domain.com.    IN  NS  loadbalander1.domain.com.
> www.domain.com.    IN  NS  loadbalancer2.domain.com.
> www.domain.com.    IN  NS  loadbalancer3.domain.com.
> domain.com.            IN  NS  loadbalancer1.domain.com.
> domain.com.            IN  NS  loadbalancer2.domain.com.
> domain.com.            IN  NS  loadbalancer3.domain.com.
> domain.com.            IN  MX 0 mail.domain.com.
>
> where just the A record can be served by the load balancer but the MX
> by the nameserver above.    I have tried the above, and a CNAME to no
> avail.   There must be some way to get this functionality - I can
> think of loads of websites where they load balance on the domain
> without the wwws and they still get mail to the same main domain.
> Maybe I am not thinking about it the right way - but there must be
> some way to accomplish this end goal.
>
> On 3/28/07, Wael Shahin <wael.shahin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> 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 gmail.com>
>> To: <bind-users at isc.org>
>> 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
>> > domain.com 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
>> > www.domain.com with no problem)  Now the problem I am having is that I
>> > also want to be able to load balance http://domain.com/  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 domain.com 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 domain.com 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>