Search Results

Search found 4 results on 1 pages for 'geodns'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • What is the difference between Anycast and GeoDNS / GeoIP wrt HA?

    - by Riyad
    Based on the Wikipedia description of Anycast, it includes both the distribution of a domain-name-to-many-IP-mapping across many DNS servers as well as replying to clients with the most geographically close (or fastest) server. In the context of a globally distributed, highly available site like google.com (or any CDN service with many global edge locations) this sounds like the two key features one would need. DNS services like Amazon's Route53, EasyDNS and DNSMadeEasy all advertise themselves as Anycast-enabled networks. Therefore my assumption is that each of these DNS services transparently offer me those two killer features: multi-IP-to-domain mapping AND routing clients to the closest node. However, each of these services seem to separate out these two functionalities, referring to the 2nd one (routing clients to closest node) as "GeoDNS", "GeoIP" or "Global Traffic Director" and charge extra for the service. If a core tenant of an Anycast-capable system is to already do this, why is this functionality being earmarked as this extra feature? What is this "GeoDNS" feature doing that a standard Anycast DNS service won't do (according to the definition of Anycast from Wikipedia -- I understand what is being advertised, just not why it isn't implied already). I get extra-confused when a DNS service like Route53 that doesn't support this nebulous "GeoDNS" feature lists functionality like: Fast – Using a global anycast network of DNS servers around the world, Route 53 is designed to automatically route your users to the optimal location depending on network conditions. As a result, the service offers low query latency for your end users, as well as low update latency for your DNS record management needs. ... which sounds exactly like what GeoDNS is intended to do, but geographically directing clients is something they explicitly don't support it yet. Ultimately I am looking for the two following features from a DNS provider: Map multiple IP addresses to a single domain name (like google.com, amazon.com, etc. does) Utilize a DNS service that will respond to client requests for that domain with the IP address of the nearest server to the requestee. As mentioned, it seems like this is all part of an "Anycast" DNS service (all of which these services are), but the features and marketing I see from them suggest otherwise, making me think I need to learn a bit more about how DNS works before making a deployment choice. Thanks in advance for any clarifications.

    Read the article

  • How can I use dig(1) to test GeoDNS resolution for a specific IP?

    - by cnst
    There's a rumour that public domain name resolvers, like Google Public DNS, are still supposed to work with GeoDNS, because there's some field in the requests that lets them specify for which IP address they are doing a resolution, thus the authoritative servers can give a given resolver different resolutions for different final clients. What's this whole thing called as far as RFCs go, and how does one mimic such resolutions, for testing purposes, e.g. with dig(1)? Else, what other tool is available to accomplish said task?

    Read the article

  • Geo-DNS providers?

    - by Jason
    We've got a website visited by users mainly in the USA and UK. The site will be run on servers in both these locations. We would like to use a DNS service to direct users to the nearest server, but can't find any. Does anyone have an recommendations for solutions. A cheap, hosted solution would be preferred as we would rather not run our own DNS servers. Cheers!

    Read the article

  • Multiple data centers and HTTP traffic: DNS Round Robin is the ONLY way to assure instant fail-over?

    - by vmiazzo
    Hi, Multiple A records pointing to the same domain seem to be used almost exclusively to implement DNS Round Robin as a cheap load balancing technique. The usual warning against DNS RR is that it is not good for high availability. When 1 IP goes down clients will continue to use it for minutes. A load balancer is often suggested as a better choice. Both claims are not completely true: When the traffic is HTTP then, most of the HTML browsers are able to automatically try the next A record if the previous is down, without a new DNS look-up. Read here chapter 3.1 and here. When multiple data centers are involved then, DNS RR is the only option to distribute traffic across them. So, is it true that, with multiple data centers and HTTP traffic, the use of DNS RR is the ONLY way to assure instant fail-over when one data center goes down? Thanks, Valentino Edit: Off course each data center has a local Load Balancer with hot spare. It's OK to sacrifice session affinity for an instant fail-over. AFAIK the only way for a DNS to suggest a data center instead of another is to reply with just the IP (or IPs) associated to that data center. If the data center becomes unreachable then all those IP are also unreachables. This means that, even if smart HTML browsers are able to instantly try another A record , all the attempts will fail until the local cache entry expires and a new DNS lookup is done, fetching the new working IPs (I assume DNS automatically suggests to a new data center when one fail). So, "smart DNS" cannot assure instant fail-over. Conversely a DNS round-robin permits it. When one data center fail, the smart HTML browsers (most of them) instantly try the other cached A records jumping to another (working) data center. So, DNS round-robin doesn't assure session affinity or the lowest RTT but seems to be the only way to assure instant fail-over when the clients are "smart" HTML browsers. Edit 2: Some people suggest TCP Anycast as a definitive solution. In this paper (chapter 6) is explained that Anycast fail-over is related to BGP convergence. For this reason Anycast can employ from 15 minutes to 20 seconds to complete. 20 seconds are possible on networks where the topology was optimized for this. Probably just CDN operators can grant such fast fail-overs. Edit 3:* I did some DNS look-ups and traceroutes (maybe some expert can double check) and: The only CDN using TCP Anycast seems to be CacheFly, other operators like CDN networks and BitGravity use CacheFly. Seems that their edges cannot be used as reverse proxies. Therefore, they cannot be used to grant instant failover. Akamai and LimeLight seems to use geo-aware DNS. But! They return multiple A records. From traceroutes seems that the returned IPs are on the same data center. So, I'm puzzled on how they can offer a 100% SLA when one data center goes down.

    Read the article

1