DNS delegation based on both location and organization
Danny Mayer
mayer at gis.net
Fri Sep 9 04:30:09 UTC 2005
Brad Knowles wrote:
>
>> - I need local resolution and redundancy (I even need load balancers
>> for the quickest response time and highest availability)
>
You don't really need load balancers for DNS since the architecture of
DNS is by its nature distributed. Load Balancers for DNS are a waste of
money and effort.
> But keep in mind that you don't want to list too many
> authoritative servers (typically no more than four or five), because
> you don't want to cause the responses you hand out to exceed the
> 512-byte limitation of typical DNS responses via the UDP protocol.
> Trust me, you do *not* want to know what kind of weirdness tends to
> manifest itself when you start causing truncation, which results in
> DNS queries having to be re-tried with TCP, etc....
>
On this one I do trust you! It was not what you did but what was done to
the DNS Servers that caused the problems.
Danny
More information about the bind-users
mailing list