Re: Minimum TTL question

At 12:27 PM 7/1/2003 -0500, Pete Ehlke wrote:

>It's still bad form, IMO. The DNS is almost always the wrong way to do
>load balancing, and if you search the archives of this list,
>bind9-users, nanog, and namedroppers, you can find periodic, extensive,
>and... erm... vigorous debate on the topic.

Yeah, well, it's probably one of those, er, "vigorous" debates where I hit
upon the "practical" minimum idea.

I agree that DNS is the wrong way to handle load balancing, and that there
are better things to do this with (such as, maybe, BGP). If all my
equipment were within a single vendor, then this would be a slam dunk
(apart from implementation). Since it isn't, then I have to get competitors
to route class C's they don't own, etc. Thus, people begin to ping on me
about "DNS solutions."

But, everyone has helped me clarify this in my mind, A LOT. And, I know my
observations are not just me doing something wrong with DNS.

Again, thanks to everyone who contributed to this.


===
Bob Gahl Bicycle (Ryan Vanguard) Mobile || @
ARPA/Internet: bgahl@bawcsa.org || !_ \
URL: http://www.bawcsa.org/bgahl/ || (*)-~--+--(*)
"Sahn joong moe low ful how jee yah ching wong" - "When the
mountain has no tigers, the monkey will also declare himself
king." Chinese Proverb