[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       bind-users
Subject:    Re: Do TLD glue records support round robin replies?
From:       Bob Harold <rharolde () umich ! edu>
Date:       2015-08-17 18:04:16
Message-ID: CA+nkc8C0TxKvK7W_AXQmipgNnoxhNq1RzVKKAJ+Y8NNG04EvXA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]


On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:34 AM, MURTARI, JOHN <jm5903@att.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
>
>
>                 Our normal procedure when changing the IP address of a TLD
> name server is to get the new server responding properly and then update
> the glue records with the Registrar to reflect the new address, normally
> 1-2 days apart for two nameservers.   We monitor query traffic on each and
> usually see a distinctive shift once the glue record is updated and almost
> all traffic shifts in the first 24 hours. e.g.
>
>                 ns1.example .com – 1.2.3.4   (first day) à 
> 10.20.30.40    (confirm normal ops)
>
>              ns2.example.com—5.6.7.8 (second day) à 50.60.70.80
>
>
>
>                 We had someone on staff make a suggestion we could modify
> this approach by adding an additional IP address for each of the existing
> servers:
>
>                 ns1.example.dom – 1.2.3.4 (first day) à 1.2.3.4 &
> 10.20.30.40  (confirm normal ops)
>
>
>
>                 I never even thought a Registrar would allow this?   Is it
> supported?   A useful idea in certain scenarios (although I'm not sure
> when) ?
>

My $.02
That is a valid idea and useful.  But if the NS, A, and AAAA records are
approaching the max packet size, then I would avoid doing it.  Also, it
adds more steps to the process.  So it takes a little longer but is a
little less risk.  Your choice.

-- Bob Harold


>                 Thanks!
>
>
>
> ----------------
> John Murtari – jm5903@att.com
>
> Ciberspring
>
>
>

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div \
class="gmail_signature"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 \
at 9:34 AM, MURTARI, JOHN <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:jm5903@att.com" \
target="_blank">jm5903@att.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex">





<div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Folks,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u>  <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">                               Our normal procedure when \
changing the IP address of a TLD name server is to get the new server responding \
properly and then update the glue records with the Registrar to reflect the new \
address, normally 1-2 days apart  for two nameservers.     We monitor query traffic \
on each and usually see a distinctive shift once the glue record is updated and \
almost all traffic shifts in the first 24 hours. e.g.<br> <br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">                               ns1.example .com – 1.2.3.4     \
(first day) <span style="font-family:Wingdings"> Ã </span>   10.20.30.40       \
(confirm normal ops)<u></u><u></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal">                         \
<a href="http://ns2.example.com" target="_blank">ns2.example.com</a>—5.6.7.8 \
(second day) <span style="font-family:Wingdings"> Ã </span> \
50.60.70.80<u></u><u></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u></u>  <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">                               We had someone on staff make a \
suggestion we could modify this approach by adding an additional IP address for each \
of the existing servers:<u></u><u></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal">                      \
ns1.example.dom – 1.2.3.4 (first day) <span style="font-family:Wingdings"> à \
</span> 1.2.3.4 &amp; 10.20.30.40   (confirm normal ops)<u></u><u></u></p> <p \
class="MsoNormal"><u></u>  <u></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal">                          \
I never even thought a Registrar would allow this?     Is it supported?     A useful \
idea in certain scenarios (although I'm not sure when) \
?</p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>My $.02  </div><div>That is a valid \
idea and useful.   But if the NS, A, and AAAA records are approaching the max packet \
size, then I would avoid doing it.   Also, it adds more steps to the process.   So it \
takes a little longer but is a little less risk.   Your \
choice.</div><div><br></div><div>-- Bob Harold</div><div>  </div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div><p \
class="MsoNormal"><u></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal">                               \
Thanks!<u></u><u></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u></u>  <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">----------------       <br>
John Murtari – <a href="mailto:jm5903@att.com" \
target="_blank">jm5903@att.com</a><u></u><u></u></p> <p \
class="MsoNormal">Ciberspring<u></u><u></u></p> <p \
class="MsoNormal"><br></p></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>



_______________________________________________
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/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

Configure | About | News | Add a list | Sponsored by KoreLogic