Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdahl!twg.com!david From: david@twg.com (David S. Herron) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains Subject: Re: BIND bug list Message-ID: <7254@gollum.twg.com> Date: 6 Jun 90 01:55:45 GMT References: <1990May17.083447.6880@mlb.semi.harris.com> <25358@netnews.upenn.edu> Reply-To: david@twg.com (David S. Herron) Organization: The Wollongong Group, Palo Alto, CA Lines: 33 In article <25358@netnews.upenn.edu> hagan@DCCS.UPENN.EDU (John Dotts Hagan) writes: [Deleted tale of woe involving having only 3 nameservers on campus and the slowness that results in client resolvers when one of the nameservers dies..] >It would be great if the first user who tries a telnet (or whatever) suffered >the hit once for that host, then other tries would quickly just go at a working >name server. Why not go ahead and run nameservers on every machine capable of it? You'd (of course) set up the nameservers so they're slaves and forward to the primaries for your campus. Then set up the resolv.conf so that it first queries the local server then goes to others on campus. This way if one of the busy nameservers dies the answers will more than likely be cached in the local nameserver. Your local nameserver is less likely to die since it's less busy (it doesn't have to service everybody y'see). > Perhaps dead name servers could be routinely retried and some >stats kept on them (I think bind already does this sort of thing when dealing >with the list of root servers, so at least there is some precedent for this >kind of behavior). You already have the answer... BIND does what you want already so use it. -- <- David Herron, an MMDF weenie, <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <- <- Sign me up for one "I survived Jaka's Story" T-shirt!