On 12/09/15 16:32, blrmaani wrote:
I would like to put 4 DNS masters behind a vip and have several slaves doing
the zone transfer from the VIP-IP. Is this normal?
I don't know that I would consider this normal per say.
I'm assuming that you are talking some sort of network load balancer,
i.e. F5.
Are you maintaining state or load balancing in a stateless manner?
Stateless may interfere with TCP based transfers if the LB algorithm
isn't at least maintaining state for that TCP session.
The usual approach is to have slaves getting zone transfers from multiple
masters. What is the disadvantage of having slaves using just the vip and have
all masters behind the vip?
If I were messing with hardware load balancers, I'd be tempted to employ
redundancy. I.e. have two (or more) load balancers in front of two (or
more) back end servers. I would also employ affinity for a given load
balancer / back end server pair, with fall back to other back end servers.
Doing that would provide multiple VIPs to publish as DNS servers, while
still allowing each of them to fall back to other back end servers if
necessary.
Conceptually I don't see any problems from the network layer with what
you are proposing.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
_______________________________________________
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
