DNS delegation based on both location and organization

[Danny Mayer]

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 ?
> 

The nameservers listed in the parent domain are by definition the 
authorative ones. Which one gets a query to be answered authoratively is 
essentially random. So if you need more steam you add more authorative 
servers and list them in the parent. After that if you still need more 
resouces you can start using anycast. See how the root servers work. 
They certainly don't use load balancing.

Danny

> --
> cmic|at|caramail|dot|com
> Sysadmin Un*x & Wind...
> 
>>>	But keep in mind that you don't want to list too many=20
> 
> .=2E.
> 
>>Danny
> 
> 
> 
>