BIND with DNAME

[Jim Reid]

>>>>> "cmolina" == cmolina  <cmolina at net-uno.net> writes:

    cmolina> I am looking if the actual BIND 9 DNAME RR is similar to
    cmolina> the lbdns hack implemented on bind 8.1

I doubt it. DNAMEs have nothing to do with load balancing, though I
suppose they could be abused for that if someone tried really
hard. They are meant to be used for resolving chains of A6 records for
reverse lookup on IPv6 addresses. See RC2874.

    cmolina> I want to do some load balancing (not round robing) on a
    cmolina> set of servers via DNS servers...

Well round-robin is usually good enough for most situations. Think
carefully before deploying an alternative.

    cmolina> Anybody have an example of the implementation of the
    cmolina> DNAME RR on bind 9...??

Read RFC2672.

AFIAK the DNAME RR type is only supported in BIND9. The rest of the
world's name servers will not be able to handle them properly. So you
should think on that. What if a stub resolver or a BIND8 (say) name
server gets an answer containing a DNAME?