On 7/18/2011 11:42 PM, AMANI MOHAMED BIN SUWAIF wrote:
Hi,
I have the below scenario
_TCP.EXAMPLE.COM IN SRV 10 0 5060 primary-sbg.example.com
_TCP.EXAMPLE.COM IN SRV 20 0 5060
secondary-sbg.example.com
I have 2 IP ranges and 2 SBGs host, my intention is
for client in IP range1
primary-sbg IN A 1.1.1.1
secondary-sbg IN A 2.2.2.2
for client in IP range2
primary-sbg IN A 2.2.2.2
secondary-sbg IN A 1.1.1.1
can this be achieved without using a views?
I thought this can be solved just by a sortlist, where
primary-sbg IN A 1.1.1.1
primary-sbg IN A 2.2.2.2
secondary-sbg IN A 2.2.2.2
secondary-sbg IN A 1.1.1.1
and then introduce the sortlist, which sorts the position of IP
addresses based on the IP range client comes from?
something like,
sortlist {
{
IPRANGE1; // 1st client IP selection matches any of these
{1.1.1.1; // return any of these response IPs as 1st preference
};
{
IPRANGE2; // 1st client IP selection matches any of these
{2.2.2.2; // return any of these response IPs as 1st preference
};
};
but in this case,
client from IPRANGE1 receive 1.1.1.1 as a first choice for both
primary-sbg and secondary-sbg
and
client from IPRANGE2 receive 2.2.2.2 as a first choice for both
primary-sbg and secondary-sbg
which is not the intention. sortlist doesn't not consider domain name.
The intention is to have primary SBG for first iprange act as a
secondary SBG for the second ip range and vice verse and in similar
manner for multiple IP ranges and SBGs. Problem with views is that
anytime this setup gets bigger and we will have additional ip ranges
and additional SBGs, it will require additional views...
(LOC)RANGE PRIMARY(LOC) SECONDARY(LOC)
(L1)IPRANGE1 SBG1(L1) SBG6(L2)
(L1)IPRANGE2 SBG2(L1) SBG7(L2)
(L1)IPRANGE3 SBG3(L1) SBG8(L2)
(L1)IPRANGE4 SBG4(L1) SBG9(L2)
(L1)IPRANGE5 SBG5(L1) SBG10(L2)
(L2)IPRANGE6 SBG6(L2) SBG1(L1)
(L2)IPRANGE7 SBG7(L2) SBG2(L1)
(L2)IPRANGE8 SBG8(L2) SBG3(L1)
(L2)IPRANGE9 SBG9(L2) SBG4(L1)
(L2)IPRANGE10 SBG10(L2) SBG5(L1)
half of the SBGs is in one location (L1) and half in other (L2),
that's why it is important that for clients from ranges in one
location, first half of SBGs is preferred, and for other clients from
second location other half of SBGs is preferred. Client configuration
should be uniformed (same SRV) regardless the location.
Are you over-engineering this? If the A-record failover by your client
is fast enough you might only need 1 SRV record, and then sortlisting
will work fine (subject to the usual caveats: as long as you can control
the sortlist config of every resolver your clients will use, and keep
them in sync).
- Kevin
_______________________________________________
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
