Internet.com
Get your
ISP-News
courtesy of
internetnews.com




Search ISP-Lists
Search:
ISP Channel
CLEC-Planet
ISP Glossary
ISP News
ISP-Planet
ISP-Lists
E-mail Newsletters
Opt-in Announcements
Discussion Forums
internet.com
IT
Developer
Internet News
Small Business
Personal Technology

Search internet.com
Advertise
Corporate Info
Newsletters
Tech Jobs
E-mail Offers

The ISP-Lists.com Email Discussion List Community

<- Previous Message | Next Message ->
Thread Index
[isp-dns] CNAME vs A record load-balancing? (and akadns.net)
  • To: isp-dns@isp-dns.com
  • Subject: [isp-dns] CNAME vs A record load-balancing? (and akadns.net)
  • From: "Jonathan B." <jlb0001@...>
  • Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:15:23 -0600

It seems like many major sites have their DNS hosted by Akamai.com. For example, yahoo.com, google.com, cbs.com, nba.com all have a similar setup:

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.google.com. IN A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.google.com. 3600 IN CNAME www.google.akadns.net.
www.google.akadns.net. 300 IN A 216.239.41.99

In these setups, generally they map the domain record in question to a CNAME in the akadns.net domain. So my question is why use a CNAME? Why not just have the name servers set to ns1.akadns.net so that only one hit to remote DNS servers are required to resolve the A record(s)? (With this setup, it appears to me to take at least 2 separate DNS requests to resolve the name.) So, why not just have multiple A records setup for round-robin DNS-based load balancing (so only one request has to be made)?

One other interesting nuance I saw is the difference between yahoo.com and nba.com. In nba.com's setup, the answers come back in only one hit to their name server, as if cached by a non-authoritative name server. If CNAMEs are the way to go (for a reason I hope someone will explain), why not specify a "non-authoritative" name server as the "authoritative" name server in all cases (so the CNAME is resolved without penalty of another hit)? (Admitidly, my use of "authoritative" is surely imprecise; so I beg that you try to infer what I mean by taking a look at these two different domains via dig to the authoritative name servers of each.) Of course, if this method of a caching, front-end DNS server is acceptable, then, again, why not just use the older-fashioned A record round-robin method?

SEE:
dig @ns1.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
dig @NS10.NBA-HQ.COM www.nba.com

Thanks for your comments!

-Jonathan

_________________________________________________________________
Have fun customizing MSN Messenger — learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize








To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

------------------------ANNOUNCEMENT---------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
** ISPCON Spring 2004 ** Washington DC Hilton & Towers **
** The industry's ISP and WISP event ** www.ispcon.com **
** 10 years experience illuminating the market's future **
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Replies
[isp-dns] Re: CNAME vs A record load-balancing? (and akadns.net), John Payne
[isp-dns] Re: CNAME vs A record load-balancing? (and akadns.net), Len Conrad
[isp-dns] Re: CNAME vs A record load-balancing? (and akadns.net), R. Scott Perry
[isp-dns] Re: CNAME vs A record load-balancing? (and akadns.net), haesu
<- Previous Message | Next Message ->
Thread Index

ISP Glossary
Find an ISP Term

Need Help?


The Network for Technology Professionals

Search:

About Internet.com

Legal Notices, Licensing, Permissions, Privacy Policy.
Advertise | Newsletters | E-mail Offers