Can I have Inbound load balancing achieved with below settings

[Blake Hudson]

Phil Mayers wrote the following on 11/14/2013 2:39 AM:
> On 13/11/13 22:21, Carl Byington wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 16:49 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
>>> It means that users will have to wait for an arbitrary
>>> number of timeouts before the browser can give them an error message.
>>
>> Well, the browser *could* of course give a message like "I have tried $N
>> out of $M possible ip addresses with no success - do you want to abandon
>> this?" at any time while trying that collection of ip addresses.
>>
>> The other approach is to try them all in parallel, sort of like ipv4 and
>> ipv6 parallel connection attempts in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6555
>
> Parallel is bad - they *should* be stagged by $RTT*$FACTOR, otherwise 
> you just flood the link with SYN & SYN/ACK packets, all but one of 
> which are wasted, and may have consumed bandwidth, buffer space, NAT 
> and firewall session resources, to name but a few.
>
> I think there are better solutions than publishing an enormous list of 
> A/AAAA records, personally, and I think it's good that browser 
> manufacturers aren't blasting out 6 SYNs every time someone types 
> www.google.com...
On a related note, I have seen recent Comtrend DSL modems (w/ integrated 
router and DNS cache) send out parallel DNS requests to both of the 
configured DNS servers. The debug log on the modem indicates that the 
modem throws away latter responses.

I agree that staggered might be a softer approach that is less resource 
intensive and will likely achieve the same (or perhaps better) result if 
all services are working. In the case of degraded service, the more 
aggressive parallel client will likely be faster. As a server and 
network admin, I guess we have to anticipate and prepare for clients 
that might be considered borderline abusive.

--Blake