Re: IGPs and services?

["R.P. Aditya" <aditya () dnai com>]

In message <Pine.LNX.4.21.0005171452440.14436-100000 () harmony hudes org>, dhudes () hudes org
 writes:
> Why not just inject the /32 in the router as a static route?
> Keep OSPF overhead off the UNIX system and keep the application server out
> of my IGP.

Perfectly valid, except that DNS servers are usually attached by some sort of
broadcast media via a switch to the router that has the static route, and if
the DNS server stops responding, the static route doesn't "go away". 

I have used a cross-over cable from the DNS server to a dedicated ethernet
interface on the router to solve this, however, it didn't fly as it came down
to not wanting to have a single underutilized interface per DNS server...Cisco
ethernet ports aren't cheap (fade to other thread about using Unix/PC boxes
with cheap 4 port ethernet cards as routers)...

Adi

> On Tue, 16 May 2000, R.P. Aditya wrote:
>
> > The scenario the original poster described, wanting to have regionally based
> > caching DNS servers for clients is a fine example of when in fact it is a good
> > and plausible idea to run a routing protocol on a Unix machine.
> >
> > I've run ospf on the DNS servers to redistribute the same /32 loopback address
> > at different pops on local machines. I know of at least one large provider who
> > uses BGP to achieve the same thing...It works well because bind tends to be
> > far more stable and robust than the routing protocol program.
> >
> > I would recommend BGP since you can filter everything to the (DNS) server and
> > only announce the /32...
> >
> > I can imagine doing the same thing for smtp relay boxes, never tried it
> > though.
> >
> > Adi
> >
> > In message <00e201bfbfc8$3b7597f0$eaaf6cc7@PEREGRIN>, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" writes:
> > > > ww () shadowfax styx org: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 10:34 PM
> > >
> > > > What  is  the  general  feeling  about running  routing  protocols  on
> > > > web/dns/mail servers?