On Feb 11 2009, Johnny wrote:
_sip._udp.as.host.com as1.host.com 0 1 5060 _sip._udp.as.host.com as2.host.com 0 0 5060
That's the wrong syntax. I'll assume you mean _sip._udp.as.host.com. SRV 0 1 5060 as1.host.com. _sip._udp.as.host.com. SRV 0 0 5060 as2.host.com.
Since "as1" has a higher weight, it will always be picked first by the SRV aware client?
Not because it has a higher weight, but because it has an *infinitely* higher weight.
I want the devices to ALWAYS go to "as1" and only go to "as2" if "as1" is not available. Do the above lines accomplish that?
Yes, but in a perverse way, IMNSHO. It's more natural to use priorities rather than weights, if that's what you want: _sip._udp.as.host.com. SRV 0 100 5060 as1.host.com. _sip._udp.as.host.com. SRV 1 100 5060 as2.host.com. That defines a strict ordering. If you had _sip._udp.as.host.com. SRV 0 2 5060 as1.host.com. _sip._udp.as.host.com. SRV 0 1 5060 as2.host.com. then a client is meant to try as1 2/3 of the time, and as2 1/3 of the time. The intended consequences of using a zero weight value are spelled out in detail in RFC 2782, but there is no need to rely on them. -- Chris Thompson Email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
