Re: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority & round-robin pools

Somehow all that ^ puffery translates into NOT wanting to allow the user to prioritize the use of forwarders the way they want? Um, ok ... ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users ma

Re: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority & round-robin pools

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote: > So, if your link is saturated to the point that you can't hold up a VPN > connection reliably, you fall back to an less-secure method of resolution? No. > Non-deterministic security, what a concept! Didn't take long for you to reso

Re: BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority & round-robin pools

Hi On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote: > Forwarders are selected based on an RTT(round-trip-time)-based algorithm There's an invalid presumption there -- that 'fastest' == 'most desired / highest priority'. Regardless of any specific case, the requested feature al

BIND9 Feature Request: 'fowarders' priority & round-robin pools

I run bind 9.10.2-P3. I have three classes of forwarders that I'd like to use: (1) my own, hosted forwarder. fast & private, but not redundant infrastructure (2) private/encrypted hosted forwarders. slow, private, and redundant infrastructure. (3) reliable ISP & public forwarders. fast, redund