forwarding options?

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

On 29.01.08 19:20, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> The point is, if you're forwarding to an instance on the same server, 
> you're never going to have the "queries time out because forwarding 
> server is down" situation. Which is what you described as the problem 
> you're trying to solve.

the proces can still be down or not responding for whatever reason.
however I still don't plan rbldnsd on each machine bind runs on.

> As for your "cache farm" idea, it's hard to evaluate that without 
> understanding what you mean by "mirroring". Is your rbldns server 
> *authoritative* for the zones in question? If so, is it a *published* 
> nameserver for the zones in question? If it's a published nameserver, 
> then probably you should just define "stub" zones and let the RTT 
> mechanism do its thing. If it's authoritative but not published 
> ("stealth slave"), rather than building a "cache farm", why don't you 
> just "mirror" the zones on another rbldns server, and then put some sort 
> of software/hardware load-balancer in front of the two?

rbldnsd is authoritative from its principle - it does not receive
informations using the DNS protocol. The zones are usually transfered via
rsync, the "mirroring" was meant as it's used in FTP.

I can't put those rbldnsd's behind balancer, but even if I did, I first want
to query my local rbldns server, then any others (public).

And don't wait too long for querying public servers. Last time I was
sniffing the DNS comunication (to find out whan my rbldns crashed), the
query intervals were over 6 (9?) seconds long, which is imho too much, 1-3
seconds is just enough.

> I don't see why you mention looping. Why would there be looping if the 
> resolution path terminates in an authoritative server for the zone in 
> question?

Because that is a different problem than the first one. Our "cache farm"
means multiple recursive BIND servers on one network (behind load balancer).
If one of them receives a request, I don't mind if it asks each other before
it starts querying public servers (the access to local network is faster
with more bandwidth available than access to most of the intenet).

But if recursive requests would be send, caches caches would keep asking
each other until the timeout. So we have multiple caches that are unable to
cooperate with each other.

> If these "mirrored" zones aren't being served authoritatively, then I 
> have no clue what you're trying to describe.

I was trying to describe two different problems (well, one problem and one
idea) where both could benefit of the maximum forwarding timeout option and
latter one would need option for disabling recursive requests

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way.