Round robin, failover and resolvers

Rob Mortimer r_mortimer at postmaster.co.uk
Tue Oct 21 17:05:08 UTC 2003


On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:28:03 +0200, "Ori Tend" <ori at fetchbook.info>
wrote:

>Dear list, 
>I have 2 boxes, and I'm trying to implement standard failover between
>the boxes- ie, if a box fails, requests would be served from other box.
>I've seen a number of commercial hosted solutions that cost $300 / month
>(looks like they host something like lbnamed). Trying to cut costs, I've
>thought of acheiving that myself using bind:
>Have a standard round-robin of the 2 A ip's, with very low ttl, assuming
>that in case of a failure of one ip, the client's resolver will try to
>hit the other ip, which will work well - as suggested by many posts in
>the list.
>However, I keep seeing "ancient resolvers would only use the first ip on
>the list", and I'm trying to understand, how ancient?
>Would Win98 resolver try to use the next ip on the list? Would Win2k? 
> 
>Would be great if anyone can shed some light here.
> 
>Thanks,
>Ori.
>
Have you looked at the "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol" Originally
designed for routers this allows two boxes to create one virtual NIC
between them. In the event of the primary machine failing requests are
picked up by the second machine. This is network transparent.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/vrrpd

Regards Robert



More information about the bind-users mailing list