Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-29 Thread Da Rock
On 12/29/11 12:45, Kevin Wilcox wrote: On Dec 28, 2011 9:26 PM, "Victor Sudakov" wrote: And the reason for the whole thread. One of the customers told me that 8.8.8.8 is faster than our own DNS servers which are located on the same 100 MBit/s LAN with them. I was shocked but it seems true, at

Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-29 Thread Peter Andreev
2011/12/29 Victor Sudakov : > Peter Andreev wrote: >> >> >> > Victor, we researched this topic and learned that response time >> >> >> > highly >> >> >> > depends on distance between user and resolver, while cache influence >> >> >> > on this value is lesser. >> >> >> > So I advice you to keep all

Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-29 Thread Victor Sudakov
Peter Andreev wrote: > >> >> > Victor, we researched this topic and learned that response time highly > >> >> > depends on distance between user and resolver, while cache influence > >> >> > on this value is lesser. > >> >> > So I advice you to keep all as is. > >> >> > >> >> Be it so. Thank you. >

Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-29 Thread Peter Andreev
2011/12/29 Victor Sudakov : > Peter Andreev wrote: >> >> >> >> > Victor, we researched this topic and learned that response time highly >> >> > depends on distance between user and resolver, while cache influence >> >> > on this value is lesser. >> >> > So I advice you to keep all as is. >> >> >> >

Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-28 Thread Victor Sudakov
Peter Andreev wrote: > >> > >> > Victor, we researched this topic and learned that response time highly > >> > depends on distance between user and resolver, while cache influence > >> > on this value is lesser. > >> > So I advice you to keep all as is. > >> > >> Be it so. Thank you. > > > > And th

Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-28 Thread Peter Andreev
2011/12/29 Victor Sudakov : > Victor Sudakov wrote: >> >> > Victor, we researched this topic and learned that response time highly >> > depends on distance between user and resolver, while cache influence >> > on this value is lesser. >> > So I advice you to keep all as is. >> >> Be it so. Thank yo

Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-28 Thread Kevin Wilcox
On Dec 28, 2011 9:26 PM, "Victor Sudakov" wrote: > And the reason for the whole thread. One of the customers told me that > 8.8.8.8 is faster than our own DNS servers which are located on the > same 100 MBit/s LAN with them. I was shocked but it seems true, at > least for the answers which are no

Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-28 Thread Victor Sudakov
Victor Sudakov wrote: > > > Victor, we researched this topic and learned that response time highly > > depends on distance between user and resolver, while cache influence > > on this value is lesser. > > So I advice you to keep all as is. > > Be it so. Thank you. And the reason for the whole th

Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-28 Thread Victor Sudakov
Peter Andreev wrote: [dd] > Victor, we researched this topic and learned that response time highly > depends on distance between user and resolver, while cache influence > on this value is lesser. > So I advice you to keep all as is. Be it so. Thank you. -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RI

Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-28 Thread Victor Sudakov
Damien Fleuriot wrote: > > > >> > >> If you're trying to build up a cache to improve performance and response > >> time, here's your scenario: > >> > >> DNS C, forward to DNS A,B for all queries > >> DNS D, forward to DNS B,A for all queries > >> > >> Your cache will start building up and only re

mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-28 Thread Peter Andreev
2011/12/28 Damien Fleuriot : > > > On 12/28/11 2:07 PM, Victor Sudakov wrote: >> Damien Fleuriot wrote: >>> >>> If you're trying to build up a cache to improve performance and response >>> time, here's your scenario: >>> >>> DNS C, forward to DNS A,B for all queries >>> DNS D, forward to DNS B,A fo

Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-28 Thread Damien Fleuriot
On 12/28/11 2:07 PM, Victor Sudakov wrote: > Damien Fleuriot wrote: >> >> If you're trying to build up a cache to improve performance and response >> time, here's your scenario: >> >> DNS C, forward to DNS A,B for all queries >> DNS D, forward to DNS B,A for all queries >> >> Your cache will star

Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-28 Thread Victor Sudakov
Damien Fleuriot wrote: > > If you're trying to build up a cache to improve performance and response > time, here's your scenario: > > DNS C, forward to DNS A,B for all queries > DNS D, forward to DNS B,A for all queries > > Your cache will start building up and only responses that are not cached

Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-28 Thread Matthew Seaman
On 28/12/2011 07:54, Victor Sudakov wrote: > This question is not directly related to FreeBSD, but perhaps some > network administrators reading this list know the answer. > > Can I setup several ISC BIND servers to be each other's mutual forwarders? > Will it work or create an endless loop of DNS

Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-28 Thread Damien Fleuriot
On 12/28/11 8:54 AM, Victor Sudakov wrote: > Colleagues, > > This question is not directly related to FreeBSD, but perhaps some > network administrators reading this list know the answer. > > Can I setup several ISC BIND servers to be each other's mutual forwarders? > Will it work or create an

mutual forwarders in ISC BIND

2011-12-27 Thread Victor Sudakov
Colleagues, This question is not directly related to FreeBSD, but perhaps some network administrators reading this list know the answer. Can I setup several ISC BIND servers to be each other's mutual forwarders? Will it work or create an endless loop of DNS queries? I have customers using severa