DNS with several ip adessess

[Thomas Schulz]

> Views have been in bind "for all recent history".
> 
> I've watched this thread and have been biting my tongue as long as I
> could.
> 
> I'm a proponent of separating servers and NOT using views, as any of
> you that have taken a class that I've taught will attest.
> 
> I've seen too many problems over the years that have been caused by
> incorrect maintenance of both data feeding the views and goofs in the
> mechanisms making sure that the correct view is made available to the
> correct slave servers (and clients).
> 
> With today's hardware (virtualization, etc) it's not very expensive
> to build out new servers.  Separate the services and you remove lots of
> the little prickly points that will cause you pain as the complexity of
> your infrastructure grows (and as you hand off to the 'next
> generation' of maintainers).
> 
> I'm actually more a proponent of creating an architecture that doesn't
>  NEED differentiated data, but there aren't a lot of places
> implementing DNS / naming structures on green-fields these days.
> 
> AlanC
> --=20
> Alan Clegg | +1-919-355-8851 | alan at clegg.com

I use views here. I did have to do a little work to make suere the right
views went to the right places and to make sure that the slaves that needed
all the views got them correctly. But I can't see how setting up virtual
hosts would be less work and how setting up virtual hosts would be less
prone to errors. And I would have to figure out how to make one host only
answer internal queries and the other host only answer external queries.
That was easy to do with views (at least for me).

Tom Schulz
Applied Dynamics Intl.
schulz at adi.com