Multiple same-aliased hosts. Attn: Barry M

[Barry Margolin]

In article <kWBo4.23114$3b6.96215 at ozemail.com.au>,
Glen Jarret <gjarret at tyndale.apana.org.au> wrote:
>Thanks for advice re my previous q. I've been reading refs on Cisco DD & BGP
>and I'm still convinced (I suspect wrongly) that my original idea
>(geographically disparate servers, different CNAMEs &  IP Addresses, same
>alias) is the most efficient way to create a global WWW presence.
>
>Despite your earlier agreement with my logic, this doesn't seem to be common
>practice, so having told me it's sound, do you have any caveats or warnings?
>I'm convinced (so far) that this simple solution eliminates the latency of
>DD/BGP, without penalties.
>
>I need to provide local content, and (due primarily to my own pedantry) I
>want clients to get fastest possible response. (There are multiple 3rd party
>databases involved, and I don't want to add to that latency.)
>
>Am I better off staying with the simple solution, or will BGP and/or DD help
>me any?

As an inexpensive solution, I think your plan may work.  The only caveat is
that your assumption that clients will always use the closest DNS server
may not be as valid as you expect.

I suggest you give it a try and see what kind of results you get.  If
they're not as good as you hoped, then you may need to go with a DD.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.