Re: one A record to two IP addresses?

In comp.dcom.sys.cisco Walter Roberson <roberson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <p8CcnajKpcIioIKiRTvUqA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> CybrSage <CybrSage13@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> :Reading the post by Fugi, I understood it to say:
> :"BIND does not check to see if an entry is working.  When BIND sees two
> :entries, it hands out the first one, then uses round-robin to move that
> :entry to the end of the list, and hands out the next entry when it
receives
> :a request."

> Which is not what it does: it hands out all the IP addresses, but it
> changes the -order- it lists them in. 

> In other words, you -were- misled by Fugi's posting. If you analyze
> the sentances to see what parts of his phrasing led you to the
> misunderstanding, I believe you will find that the conflict between
> singular and plural bore a substantial role.
> -- 
>    IMT made the sky
>    Fall.

referring to:

when BIND sees 2 IPs for a record, it round-robin's it. it doesn't
check if it is down before handing out the IP.
 
in parallel:

when <prev referred 1> sees <prev reffered2>, <ref1> round-robins
<ref2>. <ref1> doesn't check if <ref2> is down before handing out
the IP.

the gramatical error of using singular where plural would have
clearified was indeed a mistake, however trivial to someone famaliar
with anything ISC makes.


-- 
The complexity of a weapon is inversely pro****tional to the IQ of
the weapon's operator.