> In message <20090629200938.ga6...@fantomas.sk>, Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes: > > On 30.06.09 01:08, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > In message <20090629101834.ga31...@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.
On 30.06.09 10:01, Mark Andrews wrote: > A L3 switch is still one virtual machine with one routing > entry and one path from the customer to the L3 switch. the difficulty of debugging the case when one IP directs to L3 switch with more real machines behind is bigger than the difficvulty of debugging case where one A points to more real IPs... > 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. This is just what I wanted to know. Is there any evidenve that any DNS resolvers have such behaviour? -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Silvester Stallone: Father of the RISC concept. _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
