I would suggest careful testing of the proposal will all browser versions you care about.
It would not surprise me if some browsers don't follow the 'www.' catenate look up IF they have already resoved the name form w/o the 'www.'. I wouldn't hold my breath on a DNS priority solution ... actual implementation of solution would require a prevasive change of deployed user client software. The DNS system already allows for multiple IP addresses for a given host name and its pretty iffy whether a client resolver will try the second address when the first fails. Dave Morris On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Corey Hudson wrote: > Excellent idea. As for the priorities with DNS that would emulate > something similar to mx records, I was thinking the same thing as I was > typing my question out. > > Thanks for the idea, > Corey > > > At 11:50 AM 1/27/2005, Cox, Danny H. wrote: > >Why not have your a records such that the web site is midwestls.com? > >Most browsers will fail over to adding www if that first one fails. > >This would allow you to have a second record for www.midwestls.com. > >Then tell everyone to use "midwestls.com" and you then have something > >that can play the failover role at a totally different location or at > >the same location. > > > >One day someone will create a means of setting priorities for DNS > >(something like those used for mx records) that would allow someone to > >have a failover environment that is only accessible when the master site > >is unavailable. Perhaps Internic or the DNRs can implement it such that > >the tertiary DNS servers only come into play when the primary is bogging > >down or is dead. > > > >It's either that or we all work on getting budgets that can support > >fully redundant failover environments, including ISPs, gateways and > >backbones. > > > >Danny > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Corey Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:07 AM > >To: GnatBox Users Group > >Subject: [gb-users] Multiple external gateways > > > >We have had 2 Internet outages over the past year on our T1. Both > >outages > >had us down for hours. So, I decided to bring in a secondary connection > > > >using our local cable company. I thought that it would be better to use > > > >another type of network using a completely different type of network. > >The > >idea of bringing in another T1 wasn't appealing. It would still come > >into > >our building from the same local CO, which would most likely mean within > > > >the same physical cable. Not good, especially with all of the road > >widening going on here. > > > >Currently, I have our internal network accessing our service network and > > > >the Internet through the secondary (cable) network. The "outside > >world" > >accesses our service network (website) through the primary (T1) > >gateway. Since we have complete control our internal network DNS/DHCP > >addressing, changing from one gateway to another is not a > >problem. However, providing a backup external gateway is another > >problem. > > > >I looked at GTA's high available option and just scratch my head. This > >doesn't seem to be an ideal solution since it is still only using one > >external gateway. In the 10 years we've used firewalls they have never > >failed. Yet the external network has. So, placing safeguards at a point > > > >that is probably the least point of failure between our customers and > >our > >website, e-mail and ftp server doesn't help us. I'm I missing something > > > >here? I always had another firewall on standby that I could switch out > >in > >minutes, and I realize there are companies out there that can't be down > >for > >even seconds but when the external network is down for hours what good > >is > >having 2 firewalls in a high availability configuration? > > > >Enough about the problem and GTA options. What I came up with was to > >provide another URL to our customers. So, our primary site would be > >www.midwestls.com and our secondary site would be www.midwestls2.com > >(not > >yet set up). We would notify our customers of the alternate URL if they > > > >have a problem reaching us through the primary URL. Each ISP would > >provide > >us with the appropriate external DNS for each URL. > > > >Is there a better method to doing this? Obviously, the ideal situation > >would be to provide our customers with one URL that would be a lot more > >dynamic. > > > >------------------------------------------------------ > >To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Archive: http://archives.gnatbox.com/gb-users/ > > ------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archive: http://archives.gnatbox.com/gb-users/ ------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive: http://archives.gnatbox.com/gb-users/
