<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 7/18/2011 11:42 PM, AMANI MOHAMED BIN SUWAIF wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E24FD36.6020702@ies.etisalat.ae" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I have the below scenario <br>
<br>
_TCP.EXAMPLE.COM IN SRV 10 0 5060
primary-sbg.example.com <br>
_TCP.EXAMPLE.COM IN SRV 20 0 5060
secondary-sbg.example.com <br>
<br>
I have 2 IP ranges and 2 SBGs host, my intention is <br>
<br>
for client in IP range1 <br>
primary-sbg IN A 1.1.1.1 <br>
secondary-sbg IN A 2.2.2.2 <br>
<br>
for client in IP range2 <br>
primary-sbg IN A 2.2.2.2 <br>
secondary-sbg IN A 1.1.1.1 <br>
<br>
can this be achieved without using a views? <br>
<br>
I thought this can be solved just by a sortlist, where <br>
primary-sbg IN A 1.1.1.1 <br>
primary-sbg IN A 2.2.2.2 <br>
secondary-sbg IN A 2.2.2.2 <br>
secondary-sbg IN A 1.1.1.1 <br>
<br>
and then introduce the sortlist, which sorts the position of IP
addresses based on the IP range client comes from? <br>
something like, <br>
<br>
sortlist { <br>
{ <br>
IPRANGE1; // 1st client IP selection matches any of these <br>
{1.1.1.1; // return any of these response IPs as 1st
preference <br>
}; <br>
{ <br>
IPRANGE2; // 1st client IP selection matches any of these <br>
{2.2.2.2; // return any of these response IPs as 1st
preference <br>
}; <br>
}; <br>
<br>
but in this case, <br>
client from IPRANGE1 receive 1.1.1.1 as a first choice for both
primary-sbg and secondary-sbg <br>
and <br>
client from IPRANGE2 receive 2.2.2.2 as a first choice for both
primary-sbg and secondary-sbg <br>
which is not the intention. sortlist doesn't not consider domain
name. <br>
The intention is to have primary SBG for first iprange act as a
secondary SBG for the second ip range and vice verse and in
similar manner for multiple IP ranges and SBGs. Problem with views
is that anytime this setup gets bigger and we will have additional
ip ranges and additional SBGs, it will require additional views...
<br>
<br>
(LOC)RANGE PRIMARY(LOC) SECONDARY(LOC) <br>
(L1)IPRANGE1 SBG1(L1) SBG6(L2) <br>
(L1)IPRANGE2 SBG2(L1) SBG7(L2) <br>
(L1)IPRANGE3 SBG3(L1) SBG8(L2) <br>
(L1)IPRANGE4 SBG4(L1) SBG9(L2) <br>
(L1)IPRANGE5 SBG5(L1) SBG10(L2) <br>
<br>
(L2)IPRANGE6 SBG6(L2) SBG1(L1) <br>
(L2)IPRANGE7 SBG7(L2) SBG2(L1) <br>
(L2)IPRANGE8 SBG8(L2) SBG3(L1) <br>
(L2)IPRANGE9 SBG9(L2) SBG4(L1) <br>
(L2)IPRANGE10 SBG10(L2) SBG5(L1) <br>
<br>
half of the SBGs is in one location (L1) and half in other (L2),
that's why it is important that for clients from ranges in one
location, first half of SBGs is preferred, and for other clients
from second location other half of SBGs is preferred. Client
configuration should be uniformed (same SRV) regardless the
location. <br>
</blockquote>
Are you over-engineering this? If the A-record failover by your
client is fast enough you might only need 1 SRV record, and then
sortlisting will work fine (subject to the usual caveats: as long as
you can control the sortlist config of every resolver your clients
will use, and keep them in sync).<br>
<br>
<br>
- Kevin<br>
</body>
</html>