MX question

[Kevin Darcy]

Brian Dickson wrote:

> Kevin Darcy wrote:
>
> > William Stacey wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> Of course, I'm not so naive to think all implementations follow standards.
> >>
> >> But
> >>
> >>> it's hard to know what form of standards non-compliance Microsoft was
> >>
> >> trying to
> >>
> >>> accommodate with this multiple-A scheme.
> >>
> >> I fail to see how bashing MS has any relavance to this question.  aol and
> >> yahoo do the same thing.
> >
> >
> > Um, the domain in question was microsoft.com, not aol.com or yahoo.com. Look at
> > the message which started the thread.
> >
> >
> > - Kevin
>
> Yeah, but he is saying that they do it also.  It's for load balancing
> with cluster volumes.  Basically, both machines point to a harddrive
> farm and if one loosing it's connection the other still has the connect
> and you use that one instead.

None of which explains why it is *necessary* to have multiple A records attached to
each MX target, as opposed to simply having more MX targets. I understand the need
for load-balancing and clustering. I just don't see why it is necessary for
load-balancing and clustering to have such ugly repercussions in DNS.


- Kevin