Re: a question on heirarchy

On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 Jason.Haar@trimble.co.nz wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 16, 1997 at 07:08:36AM -0800, Michael J. Maravillo wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it would surely work for the DNS. But the problem with this is that:
> >
> > - what if one of the proxies is down? and...
> > - the client checks for the address of "proxy" and gets the ip
> > address of the dead one?
> >
>
> Yup - dual DNS records are more of a load-sharing solution than a redundancy
> one. To provide redundancy, you require a patched DNS that checks the
> availability (and load?) of the hosts, and only provides DNS entries for the
> ones that are available. I have trialed such a patch to named-4.9.xx in the
> past (sorry, too long ago to remember) and it was too flakey for me to go
> with - but certainly worked in principle...
>

Have you tried..

http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~schemers/docs/lbnamed/lbnamed.html

--
The Fulcrum Consulting Group               Peter Marelas - Consultant
12/10-16 Queen St, Melbourne VIC 3000,Australia   Ph: +61-3-9621-2100
PGP Key -> finger maral@fusion.mel.sprint.com.au  Fx: +61-3-9621-2724