Dear Kevin, I am sorry but I didn't see your past response.
Please can you show me with an example what you say: "Define root zone.
Delegate teamviewer.com from root. Define teamviewer.com as 'type forward'".
An also what is the benefit in defining a root zone with the teamviewer.com
delegated in
Dear, I have to balance two DNS servers for a special reason.
I need your comments please:
1) If I use HAProxy for DNS load balancing, this software only works with
TCP protocol (not UDP). The DNS clients are a mix of Windows, Cisco and
Linux machines, so I think they ask for a FQDN using UDP and
Roberto Carna wrote:
> Dear, I have to balance two DNS servers for a special reason.
https://www.powerdns.com/dnsdist.html
> The DNS clients are a mix of Windows, Cisco and Linux machines, so I
> think they ask for a FQDN using UDP and after that -if there is no
> response-, they ask the same F
Greetings.
Would it be advisable or inadvisable to define an empty zone for .local on a
recursive, unicast BIND server that is not hosting any Microsoft Windows AD
domains or other .local zones in order to keep the queries for .local off the
root servers? It seems to me like it would be a good
Ben Bridges wrote:
>
> Would it be advisable or inadvisable to define an empty zone for .local
> on a recursive, unicast BIND server that is not hosting any Microsoft
> Windows AD domains or other .local zones in order to keep the queries
> for .local off the root servers?
If you are running BIND
On 19.02.19 09:45, Roberto Carna wrote:
Dear Kevin, I am sorry but I didn't see your past response.
Please can you show me with an example what you say: "Define root zone.
Delegate teamviewer.com from root. Define teamviewer.com as 'type forward'".
An also what is the benefit in defining a root
Dear Matus and Kevin, please tell me if it's OK if I do thsi:
*named.conf:*
include "/etc/bind/named.conf.default-zones";
*named.conf.default-zones:*
recursion yes;
zone "teamviewer.com" {
type forward;
forwarders { 8.8.8.8; };
};
*named.conf.local:*
I define "recursion yes" in named.c
Agree with Tony on TCP not going to be tried. Have you looked at using
anycast? It is not true load balancing but it allows you to stand up
multiple DNS servers that “shares” a single IP address.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 12:25 AM Tony Finch wrote:
> Roberto Carna wrote:
>
> > Dear, I have to bal
If you go with Anycast via BGP, make sure your network infrastructure has
"multipath" enabled, otherwise the traffic will be skewed to one node or
the other.
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations-01.html is
one source which summarizes some of the literature and standards
On 19-Feb-2019 20:00 CET, wrote:
> Agree with Tony on TCP not going to be tried. Have you looked at using
> anycast? It is not true load balancing but it allows you to stand up
> multiple DNS servers that “shares” a single IP address.
or just use a software load-balancer which has been designed
You need to explicitly define the root zone. Last I knew, BIND still
gets the root zone hardcoded into the executable and will try to Do
the Right Thing and find the root on its own even if the administrator
does not define one or provide hints.
You need something like,
zone "." {
type master
11 matches
Mail list logo
