> > This sounds a bit like #336 [1],
>
> Nope - we got bit by that when we upgraded
> to 9.12, which is what resulted in the explicit
> config for rrset-order.
>
> > If you can still reproduce this with current
> > master (or with current v9_12 branch), please
> > open a new GitLab issue.
>
> Pl
Hi Michał,
Thanks for the ack.
> This sounds a bit like #336 [1],
Nope - we got bit by that when we upgraded
to 9.12, which is what resulted in the explicit
config for rrset-order.
> If you can still reproduce this with current
> master (or with current v9_12 branch), please
> open a new GitLab
> I have a funny issue that looks buggish
> to me. I have an RRSET with two
> A records that our auth DNS servers happily
> round-robin, which can be observed with
>
> dig unix.lt.ucsc.edu @adns1.ucsc.edu
>
> However, our recursive DNS servers, with
> the same rrset-order config will not round-r
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 4:37 PM, gsi wrote:
When I request www, I got random answers (10.1.1.1 or 10.1.1.2)
If I use the sortlist option, I always got the same answer.
My question : how can I have cyclic answers :
request www --> reply 10.1.1.1
request www --> reply 10.1.1.2
Perfect !
thanks.
--
Sent from: http://bind-users-forum.2342410.n4.nabble.com/
___
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/ma
You can use BIND's RRSET Order for this,
http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch7/queries.html#rrset-order
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 4:37 PM, gsi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have 2 A records like this :
> wwwA10.1.1.1
> wwwA10.1.1.2
>
> When I request www, I got random answers
On 9/29/2010 12:37 AM, SW wrote:
Hi everyone...
I am rather new to the world of DNS so I'm hoping to get some of your
expertise...
Is there a way to make BIND respond DNS query in sequence? For
example, if I assign 2 IP addresses to an A record, is it possible to
have it respond like...
> Is there a way to make BIND respond DNS query in sequence?
Someone else can probably give a more authoritative answer. My
understanding is that BIND will rotate the answers it gives out when
there's more than one similar record in a rrset. And yes, this can help
spread the load a bit.
Whether t
I¹m sorry. A little typo for my example. I meant to say...
Client 1 for www.example.com -> 192.168.1.1
Client 2 for www.example.com -> 192.168.1.2
Client 3 for www.example.com -> 192.168.1.1
...and so on.
Thanks,
SW
On 9/29/10 12:37 PM, "SW" wrote:
> Hi everyone...
>
> I am rather new to t
In message <96c8e9660904071112p557840a4kfd85120d7c275...@mail.gmail.com>,
Mallappa Pallakke
writes:
> Hi Mark/Kevin,
>
> I did the changes you suggested and it worked fine.
>
> Thanks a lot for all your help.
>
> Regarding round-robin load sharing instead of random, I have
> plann
Hi Mark/Kevin,
I did the changes you suggested and it worked fine.
Thanks a lot for all your help.
Regarding round-robin load sharing instead of random, I have
planned to have a dynamic update (nsupdate) triggered at realtime when
ever a server goes down or comes up so that there wil
Mallappa Pallakke wrote:
Hi Mark,
I do not see any additional section in the response. Can you please
tell me what exactly you are asking me to change?
You're delegating the zone to the same name you're trying to
round-robin. Named is therefore fetching the name multiple times
internally
Hi Mark,
I do not see any additional section in the response. Can you please
tell me what exactly you are asking me to change?
I selected cyclic instead of random since I want my client requests
to go to servers in exactly round-robin order. Please tell is there
anything wrong with this?
T
In message <96c8e9660904061734t61414549o22a535e681f58...@mail.gmail.com>,
Mallappa Pallakke
writes:
> Hi,
>
> I tried with 9.5.1.P2, but still I am not getting the expected round
> robin results:
>
> Please see below my named.conf and zone file:
>
> named.conf:
> =
> options {
>
* Mallappa Pallakke:
> Can anybody tell me why this limitation and is there any sollution to
> resove this problem?
Does your dig call result in two lookups behind the scenes, perhaps?
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.i
Dustin Lovell wrote:
Certain browsers hitting our web application don't like having two A-records handed to them (I'm still in the process of figuring out why),
Yeah, you really need to dig into that further, since we have *hundreds*
of multi-A-record names, and we've never run into any browse
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Dustin Lovell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Certain browsers hitting our web application don't like having two A-records
> handed to them (I'm still in the process of figuring out why), and much
> prefer the first example above.
Really? So these browsers can't
17 matches
Mail list logo
