Re: DNS Redundancy

2010-10-21 Thread Michael Sinatra
On 10/21/10 08:26, Gordon A. Lang wrote: It is actually counter-productive to have two resolvers configured with this architecture, but to circumvent human nature, we publish two. There is absolutely no functional difference between the two, and there is no redundancy value for the second one -

Re: DNS Redundancy

2010-10-21 Thread Gordon A. Lang
We have been very successful using any-casting whereby multiple, equivalently-configured DNS servers are placed throughout the network, all providing DNS service on the same virtual addresses, and these virtual addresses are host-routed (i.e. route with slash-32 netmask). The keys to this working

Re: DNS Redundancy

2010-10-21 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 02:27:52PM +0100, lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote a message of 35 lines which said: > > Other options could be interesting, such as "rotate". See > > resolv.conf(5). > > Nearly off-topic, but how does one specify such options via dhcp? It depends on the DHCP cl

Re: DNS Redundancy

2010-10-21 Thread lhecking
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 06:32:09AM -0500, > Martin McCormick wrote > a message of 39 lines which said: > > > Example: > > > > nameserver 139.78.100.1 > > nameserver 139.78.200.1 > > I always add: > > timeout:1 > > because the default timeout is 5 seconds, mu

Re: DNS Redundancy

2010-10-21 Thread Phil Mayers
On 21/10/10 12:50, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: Unlike the failure of an authoritative name server, the failure of a resolver is not really transparent for the Unix stub resolver, as you have discovered. You may consider solutions using a redundancy at layer 3 such as VRRP or CARP. Yeah, we've o

Re: DNS Redundancy

2010-10-21 Thread Niall O'Reilly
On 21 Oct 2010, at 12:32, Martin McCormick wrote: > The normal procedure on internet-connected systems is to > set the resolv.conf file to include at least 2 domain name > servers. Example: > > nameserver139.78.100.1 > nameserver139.78.200.1 > > Last night, I had to take dow

Re: DNS Redundancy

2010-10-21 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 06:32:09AM -0500, Martin McCormick wrote a message of 39 lines which said: > Example: > > nameserver139.78.100.1 > nameserver139.78.200.1 I always add: timeout:1 because the default timeout is 5 seconds, much too important to allow for a smooth fallback. Ot