The reason I've heard a few times is that users are uncomfortable using only 1 address. In the past I've done 2 or 3 addresses just so that we can give out 3 addresses that all point to the same pool of servers.
Silly, I know, but sometimes it's easier to placate than to change someone/groups understanding of the world/networking/resilience/dns/loadbalancing. $0.02 t. From: bind-users-bounces+tsnyder=rim....@lists.isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounces+tsnyder=rim....@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of ju wusuo Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:56 PM To: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Anycast DNS Have seen some anycast DNS implementations using more than one address, some times even on the same subnet, any considerations or reasons for doing that? --------------------------------------------------------------------- This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
_______________________________________________ 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
