In message <0D919D57-BDA0-4FDA-873D-3DC0CD5745C0@ianai.net>, "Patrick W. Gilmore" writes:
On Aug 20, 2012, at 06:49 , "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net> = wrote:
On Aug 20, 2012, at 5:24 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: =20
But I do not think returning multiple A records for multiple = datacenters is as useful as lowering the TTL. =20 Some folks do this via various GSLB mechanisms which selectively = respond with different records based on the assumed relative topological = distance between the querying resolver and various server/service = instantiations in different locations.
"Some folks" =3D=3D "more than half of all traffic on broadband modems" = these days.
However, I think you missed a post or two in this thread.
The original point was you need a low TTL to respond with a single A = record or multiple A records which all point to the same datacenter in = case that node / DC goes down. Mark replied saying you can respond with = multiple A records pointing at multiple DCs, thereby allowing a much = longer TTL.
My question above is asking Mark how you guarantee the user/application = selects the A record closest to them and only use the other A record = when the closer one is unavailable.
You can't but a GSLB also can't know if the path from the client to the DC selected by the GSLB will work. There is a high probability that it will but no certainty. By returning addresses to multiple DC's you increase the probability that a client will be able to connect in the presence of network errors not visible to the GSLB control algorithms. If you want to add weights etc. then you need to use something like SRV to pass this information to the client. The GSLB can then adjust these. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org