Hello, we are using Global Server Loadbalancing (GSLB) for site redundancy.
GSLB is based on DNS technology and works as follows ------------------------------- standard implementation case ------------------------------- www.example.com. NS loadbalancer-1.example.com. # --> ( LB located at site-a) www.example.com. NS loadbalancer-2.example.com. # --> ( LB located at site-b) # the loadbalancer (LB) resolves the DNS query for www.example.com, based # on load balancing criteria with a site specific public IP address loadbalancer-1.example.com. A 1.y.z.w loadbalancer-2.example.com. A 2.y.z.w ------------------------------- ?? 'CNAME approach' in question ------------------------------- (-) Above setup works fine and for each service and we need 2 public IP addresses one at each site hosted on the loadbalancer device. (--) now considering that we host the same application with different names on the same server we need for each one another 2 public IP addresses - this leads to an unnecessary waste of addresses (x * 2) ==> NEW APPROACH Instead of using two new IP public addresses for the new service name I defined following: new-www.example.com CNAME www.example.com. ==> it works fine so far an the resolve process is as it should be, but ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Is it legitimate (RFC compliant) to use CNAME in this setup or is is just luck that it works and more compliant resolvers won't work properly ?? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Thanks a lot Marcel _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
