multiple-cnames support in 8.2.2-P5

[Kevin Darcy]

No, what I mean is just have a single "round robin" name that resolves to all
of the IP addresses. This would be in *addition* to the existing "www", "ftp",
"mail" etc. names. There's no rule that says you can't have multiple A records
referring to the same IP address. You wouldn't have to give up any of your
existing names. The only significant thing you'd lose would be the weighting
behavior, but that's hit-or-miss anyway since most other nameservers out there
aren't going to handle your multiple-cnames very well (remember that most of
the responses clients typically get are from their local nameservers' caches,
not directly from your nameservers).


- Kevin

Schaefer, Paul A wrote:

> >>Schaefer, Paul A wrote:
>
> >>  I just want to do load sharing among different machines.  They
> >> are existing machines that I want to use for a new purpose.  I am
> >> forced to use the existing names, I can't add new interfaces, and I can't
> >> afford any more hardware.
>
> >If _that's_ all you want to do, why don't you have the name own multiple
> >A records? I mean using the *existing* addresses that those alias targets
> >currently resolve to. This doesn't require any more interfaces or hardware.
> >Or are you trying to "weight" the addresses in the RRset somehow?
>
> Maybe I am making this too hard, but these machines have very different
> functions.  They aren't identical by any means.  DNS is the only name
> service we share across OS, so for me to give them identical names would
> cause a lot of problems.  Let me know if I'm missing something obvious
> please.
>
> >Whether multiple-cnames is "evil" or not is basically irrelevant. The
> >functionality simply isn't supported by later versions of BIND, so you need
> to
> >find alternatives.
>
> Irrelevant to me too, just curious about why it is a subversive practice.
>
> -Paul
>
> Paul Schaefer
> UNIX SA
> Cutler-Hammer