In message <ad175c30-f2bd-4456-bb7f-f0d53f65d...@cornell.edu>, John Wobus write s: > >> Then the load balancer should return default records or 0.0.0.0/:: to > >> indicate the name is good but doesn't currently have a address. > > I like that solution, actually. Even if the client doesn't recognize > > it > > as a "special" address, hopefully if it tries to connect to it, the > > packet won't make it past the first router or switch hop... > > > > Has anyone proposed this to the load-balancer vendors? > > Isn't this just a specific instance of configuring a load balancer's > fallback address? E.g., when server A and B are both down, give > address of > server C. Some load balancers allow configuration of a server D to > be used only if C is down as well. Address C or D could be configured > to be 0.0.0.0 and configured with no test for "up-ness". > > (Not that I'm completely happy with 0.0.0.0 or any other address that > local folks could conceivably have figured out some crazy use for.)
0.0.0.0, means I don't know my address. If you see packets on the wire with 0.0.0.0, which you do at boot time, the machine that sent them doesn't know its IP address yet. > John > _______________________________________________ > bind-users mailing list > bind-users@lists.isc.org > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
