Multiple CNAMEs and Bind 9

[Michael Reynolds]

--- Simon Waters <Simon at wretched.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > being against RFCs.  Could someone point me to the RFC(s) that the
> > CNAMEs violate, and if possible the line(s) which point that out.
> 
> RFC1034
Thanks, I spent the last 3 months trying to figure that out.
 
> > is there any other way to do the weighting?
> 
> BIND 9 does random starting records with same ordering by
> default, and I don't think there is an easy DNS based way within
> BIND 9 to achieve the same effect.
> 
> Load balancing has been discussed extensively in the archive,
> with lots of different ideas, although a lot depends what you
> are trying to do. Dynamic DNS offers the option to remove
> overworked or dead servers.
> 
Say I have a server on a t3 and one on a t1.  I want the t3 to get 2/3
the traffic, and the t1 to get the remaining third.  Or, for another
example, 2 t3's get 4/5, and the t1 get the last fifth.  I'm trying to
weight out the load based on what the servers can handle.  Up until 9
was released, I used Multiple CNAMEs to do this.  Perhaps there could
be something server side to handle this, but all slaves would ned to
have support for it.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com