On 28.12.09 12:36, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Applications that fail to try multiple address are broken. RFC 1123
> said as much back in October 1989 (over twenty years ago now). With
> IPv6 coming along almost every host will be multihomed and if a
> application doesn't cope then you should report it
Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <12831c89-2438-4a84-b81f-14a2ed000...@menandmice.com>, Chris
> Buxton
> writes:
>> On Dec 27, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Rick Dicaire wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 3:16 AM, Ryan S wrote:
Some web browers and applications will fail in a round-robin A record
In message <12831c89-2438-4a84-b81f-14a2ed000...@menandmice.com>, Chris Buxton
writes:
> On Dec 27, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Rick Dicaire wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 3:16 AM, Ryan S wrote:
> >> Some web browers and applications will fail in a round-robin A record
> >> configuration such that if
Михаил Фёдоров wrote:
> Hello.
>
> This has been discussed million times.
>
> DNS Round Robin A-records are NOT for implementing fail-safe structure
> in such way.
> Most browsers will fail when they get not-responding IP from round
> robin record and will not try to get another one.
> And some o
On Dec 27, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Rick Dicaire wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 3:16 AM, Ryan S wrote:
>> Some web browers and applications will fail in a round-robin A record
>> configuration such that if the first A record returned is unavailable, then
>> the browser will not bring up the page.
>
>
Hello.
This has been discussed million times.
DNS Round Robin A-records are NOT for implementing fail-safe structure
in such way.
Most browsers will fail when they get not-responding IP from round
robin record and will not try to get another one.
And some of clients will cache this IP, so deletin
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 3:16 AM, Ryan S wrote:
> Some web browers and applications will fail in a round-robin A record
> configuration such that if the first A record returned is unavailable, then
> the browser will not bring up the page.
So fix the application instead of bending the protocol to
On 26.12.09 12:14, Ryan S wrote:
> Is there a method in BIND to add/remove A records based upon server
> availability?
No.
> host www has A records 1.1.1.1, 2.2.2.2, 3.3.3.3 If 3.3.3.3 is 'down'
> (via a ping test, for example) we remove it from the [A] record until such
> time that it is back '
Ryan S wrote:
Is there a method in BIND to add/remove A records based upon server
availability?
i.e.
host www has A records 1.1.1.1, 2.2.2.2, 3.3.3.3 If 3.3.3.3 is 'down'
(via a ping test, for example) we remove it from the [A] record until
such time that it is back 'up' and the host is added
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Ryan S wrote:
> Is there a method in BIND to add/remove A records based upon server
> availability?
Just curious, but why do you think you want this? What problem does
such an implementation address?
--
aRDy Music and Rick Dicaire present:
http://www.ardynet.com
Is there a method in BIND to add/remove A records based upon server
availability?
i.e.
host www has A records 1.1.1.1, 2.2.2.2, 3.3.3.3 If 3.3.3.3 is 'down' (via a
ping test, for example) we remove it from the [A] record until such time that
it is back 'up' and the host is added back to the
11 matches
Mail list logo
