Can I have Inbound load balancing achieved with below settings

[Mark Andrews]

In message <661ca5ab225cad04bdcc3831c6964122 at tux.org>, Joseph S D Yao writes:
> On 2013-11-13 16:44, Mark Andrews wrote:
> ...
> > RFC 1123 (October 1989) applies to all applications on all hosts.
> > Note "SHOULD" and "until".
> ...
> 
> 
> Mark, I've always read "SHOULD" here as more of a plaintive hope than 
> anything else.  People have certainly felt free to ignore it.  Yes, that 
> makes their software "broken" if you are reading "SHOULD" as almost a 
> "MUST".

Which is how it is defined in the RFC.

         *    "SHOULD"

              This word or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" means that there
              may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
              ignore this item, but the full implications should be
              understood and the case carefully weighed before choosing
              a different course.

We have "MAY" for the plaintive hope case.

         *    "MAY"

              This word or the adjective "OPTIONAL" means that this item
              is truly optional.  One vendor may choose to include the
              item because a particular marketplace requires it or
              because it enhances the product, for example; another
              vendor may omit the same item.

I just wish vendors were required to publish the analysis that lead
them to not follow a SHOULD.

I'd love to hear NETGEAR's analysis of why their DNS proxy doesn't
talk TCP in the router I have here at home and see if it passes the
laugh test.

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