>> do you propose he specify the ratios with BIND? >> >> One (icky) solution is to hand out more addresses for one server than >> the otherŠ >> >> www.example.com IN A 192.168.1.1 >> www.example.com IN A 192.168.1.2 >> www.example.com IN A 192.168.1.3 >> www.example.com IN A 192.168.2.1 >> >> Bind 192.168.1.[1-3] to server1 and 192.168.2.1 to server2.
>Unless things have changed since I last checked this (many years ago), BIND >ignores the duplicates. In this case, there are no dupes - I thought this at first, but noticed it's 1.2 and 2.1 after my dyslexia turned off for a moment. The idea is novel, if ugly - bind multiple unique addresses and the BIND daemon won't know they're all for the same physical box. It'd work, but ug. t. --------------------------------------------------------------------- This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
