Talk:Split-horizon DNS

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GeoIP

Isn't geoip, and other dns techniques used for example by CDNs and other big sites a for of split-horizon DNS? It is different from DNS level loadballncing, becuase still for example one A record is returned, but for different clients a different request are returned. I think there should separate section about it, but i never seen term split-view DNS actually, so it can be not proper terminology.

Witek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.255.7 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Split-horizon is a pretty standard terminology; there's even a sister Split horizon route advertisement article as well. BIND, specifically, uses the view keyword/context to define this — see mdoc.su/n/named.conf.5 — so, the split view DNS term would be pretty standard as well. This concept is similar to GeoIP, but it's completely not the same, and in ISC BIND, for example, the split view isn't really known at all as GeoIP at all. MureninC (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]