Can I have Inbound load balancing achieved with below settings

[Mark Andrews]

In message <barmar-68EBD7.16491213112013 at news.eternal-september.org>, Barry Mar
golin writes:
> In article <mailman.1658.1384379072.20661.bind-users at lists.isc.org>,
>  Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
> 
> > No, there is no such requirement.  The browsers are just BROKEN if
> > they don't try all the offered addresses.  All browsers we were
> > written after RFC 1123 was published.
> 
> That attitude should probably be moderated when interactive applications 
> are involved.  It means that users will have to wait for an arbitrary 
> number of timeouts before the browser can give them an error message.

And there is no requirement to wait 30 seconds for the next connection
attempt.  If in the 80's if it took more than 1 or 2 seconds to
connect you could assume it wasn't going to succeed and be right
99.99% of the time.

With happy eyeballs the second and subsequent connection attempts
start in less than a second (~100-200ms) after the previous one and
you abandon redundant successful connections.  While happy eyeballs
was looking at IPv4/IPv6 that is only a special case of multi-homed
servers.

> The requirement is stated as a SHOULD, not a MUST. This gives latitude 
> to the application designer to trade off reliability and usability.

So rather than doing staggered parallel connects which would have
given them reliability and usability they decided to throw away
reliability.  Non blocking connects have existed since before the
first web browser was written.

> -- 
> Barry Margolin
> Arlington, MA
> _______________________________________________
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
>  from this list
> 
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org