NS rr configuration: 1*NS + 4xA vs. 4xNS ?

[Mark Andrews]

In message <20090629200938.GA6091 at fantomas.sk>, Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes:
> On 30.06.09 01:08, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > In message <20090629101834.GA31308 at fantomas.sk>, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wri
> tes:
> > > I am planning to change NS records in our and our customers' zones.
> > > 
> > > I'll have four nameservers on different networks, and I'd like to make
> > > configuration as easy as possible by using only one NS record for them al
> l.
> > 
> > 	And harder to debug.  1 name to 1 machine is easy to debug.
> 
> running either of them behind a L3 switch makes it hard to debug again,
> so I wouldn't take that as an issue.

	A L3 switch is still one virtual machine with one routing
	entry and one path from the customer to the L3 switch.

	There is no need to play this silly game.  It just make
	things harder.  Some machines will make assumptions that
	all the address refer to one machine and that some operations
	shouldn't be retried because they won't get a different
	response.

	Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org