Re: round-robin bug in 9.12.1-P2 for rDNS?

[Michał Kępień]

> > This sounds a bit like #336 [1],
> 
> Nope - we got bit by that when we upgraded
> to 9.12, which is what resulted in the explicit
> config for rrset-order.
> 
> > If you can still reproduce this with current
> > master (or with current v9_12 branch), please
> > open a new GitLab issue.
> 
> Please forgive my ignorance on this point,
> but is running the FreeBSD package for
> 9.12.1-P2 sufficient to meet this?

It probably is, the #336 bit above was a long shot.  Please open a
GitLab issue, supplying version information and a configuration which
allows reproducing this behavior.

Thanks!

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Kępień
___
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

Re: round-robin bug in 9.12.1-P2 for rDNS?

[Mark Boolootian]

Hi Michał,

Thanks for the ack.

> This sounds a bit like #336 [1],

Nope - we got bit by that when we upgraded
to 9.12, which is what resulted in the explicit
config for rrset-order.

> If you can still reproduce this with current
> master (or with current v9_12 branch), please
> open a new GitLab issue.

Please forgive my ignorance on this point,
but is running the FreeBSD package for
9.12.1-P2 sufficient to meet this?  We don't
usually build directly from source (for operational
reasons).

Many thanks and best regards,
mark
___
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

Re: round-robin bug in 9.12.1-P2 for rDNS?

[Michał Kępień]

> I have a funny issue that looks buggish
> to me.  I have an RRSET with two
> A records that our auth DNS servers happily
> round-robin, which can be observed with
> 
> dig unix.lt.ucsc.edu @adns1.ucsc.edu
> 
> However, our recursive DNS servers, with
> the same rrset-order config will not round-robin
> these records.
> 
> BUT, if I add a third A record, the rDNS servers
> then round-robin.
> 
> I can punch in some config elements here if
> it is useful, but this smells like a bug, and
> maybe I should be reporting on gitlab.
> 
> Thoughts?

This sounds a bit like #336 [1], but you mentioned rrset-order being
explicitly set in your configuration, so it might be something else.  If
you can still reproduce this with current master (or with current v9_12
branch), please open a new GitLab issue.  Thanks!

[1] https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/issues/336

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Kępień
___
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

Re: Round-robin

[gsi]

Perfect !

thanks.



--
Sent from: http://bind-users-forum.2342410.n4.nabble.com/
___
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

Re: Round-robin

[Nagesh Thati]

You can use BIND's RRSET Order for this,
http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch7/queries.html#rrset-order

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 4:37 PM, gsi  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have 2 A records like this :
> wwwA10.1.1.1
> wwwA10.1.1.2
>
> When I request www, I got random answers (10.1.1.1 or 10.1.1.2)
> If I use the sortlist option, I always got the same answer.
>
> My question : how can I have cyclic answers :
> request www --> reply 10.1.1.1
> request www --> reply 10.1.1.2
> request www --> reply 10.1.1.1
> request www --> reply 10.1.1.2
> ...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Guillaume.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://bind-users-forum.2342410.n4.nabble.com/
> ___
> 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
>
___
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

Re: Round robin DNS query response

[Eivind Olsen]

 Is there a way to make BIND respond DNS query in sequence?

Someone else can probably give a more authoritative answer. My
understanding is that BIND will rotate the answers it gives out when
there's more than one similar record in a rrset. And yes, this can help
spread the load a bit.

Whether that's good enough for your projoect - I can't say. Keep in mind
that your main DNS servers won't see most of the client queries, if your
clients ask other recursive DNS servers (like their ISPs servers etc).
Also depending on your requirements: doing this simple load spreading
won't account for servers being down etc, the only failover mechanism is
if whatever your clients are using is capable of retrying on a different
IP-address if the first one doesn't answer.

Regards
Eivind Olsen


___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: Round robin DNS query response

[Kevin Darcy]

On 9/29/2010 12:37 AM, SW wrote:

Hi everyone...

I am rather new to the world of DNS so I'm hoping to get some of your 
expertise...


Is there a way to make BIND respond DNS query in sequence?  For 
example, if I assign 2 IP addresses to an A record, is it possible to 
have it respond like...


Client 1 for www.example.com - 192.168.1.1
Client 2 for www.example.com - 192.168.1.2
Client 3 for www.example.com - 192.168.1.3
...and so on.

I know companies use load balancer for this function, but my customer 
in this case don't really want to make additional investment  :P

Option A: round-robin+sortlist
Option B: views

Appropriate caveats for each approach.

Note that if these are Windows clients on the same subnets as the 
www.example.com addresses, you could probably just get away with a plain 
old round-robin and rely on the built-in Windows subnet 
prioritization, see 
http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/dns/what-is-dns-round-robin-and-subnet-prioritization-.aspx



- Kevin


___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: Round robin load distribution among servers does not work properly

[Mark Andrews]

In message 96c8e9660904071112p557840a4kfd85120d7c275...@mail.gmail.com, 
Mallappa Pallakke
 writes:
 Hi Mark/Kevin,
 
 I did the changes you suggested and it worked fine.
 
 Thanks a lot for all your help.
 
 Regarding round-robin load sharing instead of random, I have
 planned to have a dynamic update (nsupdate) triggered at realtime when
 ever a server goes down or comes up so that there will not be any
 possibility of putting double load on any server.
 
My only challenge is to load the traffic on newly coming up server
 equal to other servers during high traffic. I need to do some
 controlled distribution of load (more on new server than others untill
 it comes close to other servers!).
 
Please tell me if it has got any problem.

If you need that much control you really need something
other than named or you need a extra server.  The DNS really
isn't designed to, nor is it capable of, distributing load
so precisely.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: mark_andr...@isc.org
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: Round robin load distribution among servers does not work properly

[Florian Weimer]

* Mallappa Pallakke:

 Can anybody tell me why this limitation and is there any sollution to
 resove this problem?

Does your dig call result in two lookups behind the scenes, perhaps?
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: Round robin load distribution among servers does not work properly

[Mark Andrews]

In message 96c8e9660904061734t61414549o22a535e681f58...@mail.gmail.com, 
Mallappa Pallakke
 writes:
 Hi,
 
  I tried with 9.5.1.P2, but still I am not getting the expected round
 robin results:
 
  Please see below my named.conf and zone file:
 
 named.conf:
 =
 options {
directory /var/named;
 
// Uncommenting this might help if you have to go through a
// firewall and things are not working out.  But you probably
// need to talk to your firewall admin.
 
//query-source port 53;
 
 rrset-order {
 order cyclic;};// fixed, random, cyclic
 };
 
 zone mycompany.com {
type master;
 //notify no;
file db.mycompany.com;
 
allow-update { any; };
 //  allow-update { 127.0.0.1; };
 notify yes;
 };
 
 
 db.mycompany.com:
 ===
 $ORIGIN .
 $TTL 0  ;
 mycompany.com   IN SOA  www.mycompany.com. hostmaster.mycompany.com. (
199813404 ; serial
1 ; refresh (1 second)
1 ; retry (1 second)
1 ; expire (1 second)
1 ; minimum (1 second)
)
NS  www.mycompany.com.
 $ORIGIN mycompany.com.
 localhost   A   127.0.0.1
 $TTL 0  ;
 www A   10.10.68.1
A   10.10.68.2
A   10.10.68.3
A   10.10.68.4

Change the nameservers name to be something other than
www.mycompany.com.

www.mycompany.com is being retrieved twice once for the
answer section and once for the additional section.  Each
retrieval rotates the RRset once. The latter gets thrown
away when named supresses duplicate RRsets in the answer
so you see 2 rotations and 2 divides equally into 4.

B.T.W. one should choose random rather than round-robin if
you want uniform load on failure.

Mark
 
 I always get following answers repeatedly. Not getting 10.10.68.2 and
 10.10.68.3 as top records in response messages:
 =
 atcafs-n4s1:/kwlogs/msp# dig www.mycompany.com
 
 ;  DiG 9.3.2  www.mycompany.com
 ;; global options:  printcmd
 ;; Got answer:
 ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 13961
 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
 
 ;; QUESTION SECTION:
 ;www.mycompany.com. IN  A
 
 ;; ANSWER SECTION:
 www.mycompany.com.  0   IN  A   10.10.68.4
 www.mycompany.com.  0   IN  A   10.10.68.1
 www.mycompany.com.  0   IN  A   10.10.68.2
 www.mycompany.com.  0   IN  A   10.10.68.3
 
 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
 mycompany.com.  0   IN  NS  www.mycompany.com.
 
 ;; Query time: 1 msec
 ;; SERVER: 10.10.68.1#53(10.10.68.1)
 ;; WHEN: Sun Apr  6 00:21:07 2008
 ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 113
 
 
 =
 
 atcafs-n4s1:/kwlogs/msp# dig www.mycompany.com
 
 ;  DiG 9.3.2  www.mycompany.com
 ;; global options:  printcmd
 ;; Got answer:
 ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 65208
 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
 
 ;; QUESTION SECTION:
 ;www.mycompany.com. IN  A
 
 ;; ANSWER SECTION:
 www.mycompany.com.  0   IN  A   10.10.68.2
 www.mycompany.com.  0   IN  A   10.10.68.3
 www.mycompany.com.  0   IN  A   10.10.68.4
 www.mycompany.com.  0   IN  A   10.10.68.1
 
 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
 mycompany.com.  0   IN  NS  www.mycompany.com.
 
 ;; Query time: 1 msec
 ;; SERVER: 10.10.68.1#53(10.10.68.1)
 ;; WHEN: Sun Apr  6 00:21:09 2008
 ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 113
 
 ===
 
 
 Please let me know anything is missing.
 
 Regards,
 Mallappa Pallakke
 
 
 On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Kirk b...@kirkb.net wrote:
  Mallappa Pallakke wrote:
 
  Hi,
 
 I was trying to do load balancing of client request among
  configured servers using internal DNS server, I get proper load
  balaning (DNS response with top most IP address going with proper
  round robin fashio) for odd number of IP addresses. But it does not
  give same bevior for even number of IP addresses.
 
  For example:
 
   If I have configured x.y.z.1, x.y.z.2, x.y.z.3, I get following
  combinations in dig response:
 
   x.y.z.1
   x.y.z.2
   x.y.z.3
 
   x.y.z.2
   x.y.z.3
   x.y.z.1
 
   x.y.z.3
   x.y.z.1
   x.y.z.2
 
  And this repeats, giving round robin distribution.
 
  However, if I add one more IP address to the zone list (x.y.z.4), I
  get only following combinations:
 
  x.y.z.1
  x.y.z.2
  x.y.z.3
  x.y.z.4
 
  and
 
  x.y.z.3
  x.y.z.4
  x.y.z.1
  x.y.z.2
 
  It gets repeated. I will 

Re: Round robin load distribution among servers does not work properly

[Mallappa Pallakke]

Hi Mark,

   I do not see any additional section in the response. Can you please
tell me what exactly you are asking me to change?

   I selected cyclic instead of random since I want my client requests
to go to servers in exactly round-robin order. Please tell is there
anything wrong with this?

Thanks,
Mallappa Pallakke


On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Mark Andrews mark_andr...@isc.org wrote:

 In message 96c8e9660904061734t61414549o22a535e681f58...@mail.gmail.com, 
 Mallappa Pallakke
  writes:
 Hi,

  I tried with 9.5.1.P2, but still I am not getting the expected round
 robin results:

  Please see below my named.conf and zone file:

 named.conf:
 =
 options {
        directory /var/named;

        // Uncommenting this might help if you have to go through a
        // firewall and things are not working out.  But you probably
        // need to talk to your firewall admin.

        //query-source port 53;

 rrset-order {
         order cyclic;};    // fixed, random, cyclic
 };

 zone mycompany.com {
        type master;
 //        notify no;
        file db.mycompany.com;

        allow-update { any; };
 //      allow-update { 127.0.0.1; };
 notify yes;
 };


 db.mycompany.com:
 ===
 $ORIGIN .
 $TTL 0  ;
 mycompany.com           IN SOA  www.mycompany.com. hostmaster.mycompany.com. 
 (
                                199813404 ; serial
                                1         ; refresh (1 second)
                                1         ; retry (1 second)
                                1         ; expire (1 second)
                                1         ; minimum (1 second)
                                )
                        NS      www.mycompany.com.
 $ORIGIN mycompany.com.
 localhost               A       127.0.0.1
 $TTL 0  ;
 www                     A       10.10.68.1
                        A       10.10.68.2
                        A       10.10.68.3
                        A       10.10.68.4

        Change the nameservers name to be something other than
        www.mycompany.com.

        www.mycompany.com is being retrieved twice once for the
        answer section and once for the additional section.  Each
        retrieval rotates the RRset once. The latter gets thrown
        away when named supresses duplicate RRsets in the answer
        so you see 2 rotations and 2 divides equally into 4.

        B.T.W. one should choose random rather than round-robin if
        you want uniform load on failure.

        Mark

 I always get following answers repeatedly. Not getting 10.10.68.2 and
 10.10.68.3 as top records in response messages:
 =
 atcafs-n4s1:/kwlogs/msp# dig www.mycompany.com

 ;  DiG 9.3.2  www.mycompany.com
 ;; global options:  printcmd
 ;; Got answer:
 ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 13961
 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

 ;; QUESTION SECTION:
 ;www.mycompany.com.             IN      A

 ;; ANSWER SECTION:
 www.mycompany.com.      0       IN      A       10.10.68.4
 www.mycompany.com.      0       IN      A       10.10.68.1
 www.mycompany.com.      0       IN      A       10.10.68.2
 www.mycompany.com.      0       IN      A       10.10.68.3

 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
 mycompany.com.          0       IN      NS      www.mycompany.com.

 ;; Query time: 1 msec
 ;; SERVER: 10.10.68.1#53(10.10.68.1)
 ;; WHEN: Sun Apr  6 00:21:07 2008
 ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 113


 =

 atcafs-n4s1:/kwlogs/msp# dig www.mycompany.com

 ;  DiG 9.3.2  www.mycompany.com
 ;; global options:  printcmd
 ;; Got answer:
 ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 65208
 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

 ;; QUESTION SECTION:
 ;www.mycompany.com.             IN      A

 ;; ANSWER SECTION:
 www.mycompany.com.      0       IN      A       10.10.68.2
 www.mycompany.com.      0       IN      A       10.10.68.3
 www.mycompany.com.      0       IN      A       10.10.68.4
 www.mycompany.com.      0       IN      A       10.10.68.1

 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
 mycompany.com.          0       IN      NS      www.mycompany.com.

 ;; Query time: 1 msec
 ;; SERVER: 10.10.68.1#53(10.10.68.1)
 ;; WHEN: Sun Apr  6 00:21:09 2008
 ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 113

 ===


 Please let me know anything is missing.

 Regards,
 Mallappa Pallakke


 On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Kirk b...@kirkb.net wrote:
  Mallappa Pallakke wrote:
 
  Hi,
 
     I was trying to do load balancing of client request among
  configured servers using internal DNS server, I get proper load
  balaning (DNS response with top most IP address going with proper
  round robin fashio) for odd number of IP addresses. But it does not
  give same bevior for even number of IP addresses.
 
  For example:
 
   If I have configured x.y.z.1, x.y.z.2, x.y.z.3, I get following
  combinations in dig response:
 
   x.y.z.1
  

Re: Round robin DNS and only one record?

[Kevin Darcy]

Dustin Lovell wrote:
Certain browsers hitting our web application don't like having two A-records handed to them (I'm still in the process of figuring out why), 


Yeah, you really need to dig into that further, since we have *hundreds* 
of multi-A-record names, and we've never run into any browser problems 
because of it.


Misdiagnosis perhaps?

Now, it _is_ true that some browsers take a noticeably -- and thus 
perhaps unacceptably -- long time to fail over from one address to 
another, when given a multi-A-record DNS response and the first address, 
or the first _n_ addresses, are unreachable. But if all of the addresses 
are reachable, I'm not aware of any browsers that have an issue with 
multi-A-record DNS responses _per_se_. They are extremely common.


- Kevin

___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: Round robin DNS and only one record?

[Barry Margolin]

In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
 Dustin Lovell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Certain browsers hitting our web application don't like having two A-records 
 handed to them (I'm still in the process of figuring out why), and much 
 prefer the first example above.

Really?  So these browsers can't access www.google.com, which has four A 
records?

I don't think BIND can be forced to return only one A record at a time 
without code changes.  Why don't you replace your aging load balancer 
with a new load balancer?

-- 
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users