Hi,
Is there a good way of running the current BIND (9.7 and later) for
load balancing a special record?
for example,
www.example.com IN A 192.168.1.1
www.example.com IN A 192.168.1.2
I want the first one to get more web traffic than the second one.
I know other 4 or 7 layer software (l
Hi,
sure it is.
Here a more detailed version:
http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch9/rr.html
Regards,
Simon
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:40:31 +0800, MyDots.net wrote:
Hi,
Is there a good way of running the current BIND (9.7 and later) for
load balancing a special record?
for example,
www.example.co
On 13.01.12 22:40, MyDots.net wrote:
Is there a good way of running the current BIND (9.7 and later) for
load balancing a special record?
for example,
www.example.com IN A 192.168.1.1
www.example.com IN A 192.168.1.2
kind of.
I want the first one to get more web traffic than the secon
Dear Lyle,
Yes you are correct. problem with my side. I took care by removing this domain
from sinkhole.
Regards
Babu
--- On Fri, 13/1/12, Lyle Giese wrote:
From: Lyle Giese
Subject: Re: Name resolution issue on one domain
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Cc: "babu dheen"
Date: Friday, 13 Ja
With stock DNS, no; all you can do is recommend by ordering the responses.
But there are solutions. There are load-balancing DNS servers (they have a
pool of responses, and hand out an answer of that pool, based on rules, and
can even remove an answer from the pool if a watchdog/monitor fails). F5
I am experimenting with getaddrinfo and getnameinfo and have
gotten a little confused as to the best way to extract the
IP address recovered after the function runs. The element in the
structure
res->ai_addr is a socket address which, if I am reading the
documentation correctly, will give me the b
I am a relative newbie to running BIND in "production". I have recently
set up BIND 9.7 (on CentOS 6.2) as the nameserver for my home network.
I am using Google's public DNS servers (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 as my
forwarders).
My ISP does not support IPv6, and none of the network interfaces on the
ser
The value is a struct sockaddr, which is commonly used by IP networking code to
hold an address. The definition of a "struct sockaddr" (see )
is mostly a storage container. It specifies what kind of address is in the
container (the "address family"), and then just has a buffer that holds the
Hello everyone,
I recently disabled "minimal-responses" (by setting it to 'no') in our
caching nameservers.
As I'm now able to see the authority & additional sections I noticed
something strange: whenever I query our caching nameservers for one of
our domains we get our parent nameservers under
Hi All: I have a situation where I need to forward requests for
"mydomain.com"
and "www.mydomain.com" to a third party:
"mydomain.myshopify.com" (while still
pointing other things like MX records elsewhere).
I realize I can point a CNAME for "WWW" to "mydomain.myshopify.com",
but how do
I p
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:20:39AM -0600, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> I am a relative newbie to running BIND in "production". I have recently
> set up BIND 9.7 (on CentOS 6.2) as the nameserver for my home network.
> I am using Google's public DNS servers (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 as my
> forwarders).
>
> My
On 01/13/2012 11:50 AM, Bill Owens wrote:
> I'm not familiar with CentOS, but I would be surprised to hear that any
> modern Linux distro didn't have IPv6 enabled by default; you should see at
> least link-local addresses on your active interfaces (address family inet6,
> beginning with fe80::)
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 01/12/2012 17:04, Chris McCraw wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Due to a variety of semi-political issues in our environment, we're
>> looking for a way to implement the following:
>>
>> - 2 locations with standalone-capable local nameservers which
In article ,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 13.01.12 22:40, MyDots.net wrote:
> >Is there a good way of running the current BIND (9.7 and later) for
> >load balancing a special record?
> >for example,
> >
> >www.example.com IN A 192.168.1.1
> >www.example.com IN A 192.168.1.2
>
> kin
In article ,
Simon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sure it is.
>
> Here a more detailed version:
> http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch9/rr.html
RR usually results in roughly equal load balancing. He said he wants
one of the addresses to get MORE traffic than the other. How do you
propose he specify the r
On 01/12/2012 07:04 PM, Chris McCraw wrote:
>
> Any other suggestions about how to accomplish this?
>
Could you use an LDAP backend and let it take care of the replication?
(I.e., you would run a LDAP server on each DNS server, and use the
multi-master replication functionality of the LDAP serve
On 01/13/2012 11:20 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> My ISP does not support IPv6, and none of the network interfaces on the
> server has an IPv6 address (including the loopback interface). Despite
> this, BIND appears to be trying to use IPv6 to communicate with other
> nameservers.
I finally stumbled o
Note that the actual data returned may be bigger than what will fit
in a struct sockaddr. If you need to save the results use struct
sockaddr_storage or family specific structures.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742
In message <4f106e5a.5090...@gmail.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_F=E1bregas?= writ
es:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I recently disabled "minimal-responses" (by setting it to 'no') in our
> caching nameservers.
>
> As I'm now able to see the authority & additional sections I noticed
> something strange: w
Good day,
configure /etc/default/bind9 file like:
OPTIONS="-4 -u bind"
-4 for IPv4. Bind was confusing between IPv4 and IPv6.
On 13/01/2012 19:20, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> I am a relative newbie to running BIND in "production". I have recently
> set up BIND 9.7 (on CentOS 6.2) as the nameserver
20 matches
Mail list logo
