DNS delegation based on both location and organization

[Kevin Darcy]

cmic wrote:

>Danny Mayer a =E9crit :
>
>  
>
>>Brad Knowles wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>- I need local resolution and redundancy (I even need load balancers
>>>>     for the quickest response time and highest availability)
>>>>        
>>>>
>>You don't really need load balancers for DNS since the architecture of
>>DNS is by its nature distributed. Load Balancers for DNS are a waste of
>>money and effort.
>>
>>    
>>
>Hum. Surprise. I understand that the distributed arch. of DNS is a
>"reliable" one, but I thought (as a non-expert DNS admin) thet load
>balancing for DNS was usefull to allow *one* server (say the
>auhoritative one) to answer more queries/second. Something like
>multiply the power of *this* server. Am I right ?
>
Generally it's better to just add more nameservers. Putting 
load-balancers in front only makes economic sense if you already have 
load-balancers with spare capacity, or if you have such a high query 
load for a particular zone that adding more NS records to it will cause 
truncation/retries, etc. (see some of the other comments in this 
thread). Since we had load-balancers anyway, it made sense for us to put 
them in front of our Internet-facing nameservers. The load-balancers 
also give us the flexibility to rearrange our DNS hosting infrastructure 
without having to make any changes with the various registries around 
the world, which can get pretty expensive/time-consuming/tedious when 
you're talking about hundreds of domains in dozens of TLDs...

                                                                         
                                                                        
            - Kevin