DDNS Registration behind Load Balancer

Chris Buxton cbuxton at menandmice.com
Thu Jun 26 23:25:31 UTC 2008

On Jun 26, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> Chris Buxton wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Linux Addict wrote:
>>> Greeting!!
>>> I am configuring a DNS setup where its mix of Linux and Windows  
>>> hosts.
>>> I decided to go with BIND rather than MS DNS Server. I have Windows
>>> hosts doing dynamic registration to the BIND Master Server.
>>> The next step on my project is add Load Balancer with 3 servers. I  
>>> was
>>> thinking of one master and 2 slaves initially. Then it struck me  
>>> that
>>> when a Windows Host does DDNS registration against the Load Balancer
>>> VIP, and when the Load Balancer redirects the traffic to one of the
>>> slave server, it will not accept the changes as its only secondary.
>> Not true. 'allow-update-forwarding { any; };'.
> That'll work as long as the OP only has masters and slaves, but  
> doesn't
> allow the flexibility to add caching-only resolvers in the future.
> I still think the best approach is to have the DHCP server(s), rather
> than the clients themselves, register the client names in DNS. It also
> raises less security issues.

I completely agree. I was just pointing out to the OP that one of his  
assertions was untrue.

Chris Buxton
Professional Services
Men & Mice

More information about the bind-users mailing list