Everyone seems to think that you are talking about WWW servers, even though you explicitly wrote
like a backup name-server or mail server
The oft-overlooked truth is that HTTP service
is the exception and not the norm when it comes to this. In the normal case, yes, there
is a mechanism for publishing information to clients via the DNS so that they properly fallback from primary servers to backup servers.
That mechanism is SRV
resource records, as used by service clients for many other protocols apart from HTTP. See RFC 2782.
With SRV
resource records, clients are told a list of servers, with priorities and weights, and are required to try servers in order order of priority, picking amongst servers with equal priorities according to weight, choosing higher-weighted servers more often than lower-weighted ones. So with SRV
resource records, server administrators can tell clients what the fallback servers are, and how to distribute their load across a set of equal-priority servers.
Now content DNS servers are located by a special type of resource record of their own, NS
resource records, which don't have priority and weight information. Equally, SMTP Relay servers are located by their own special type of resource record, MX
, which has priority information but no weighting information. So for content DNS servers there's no provision for publishing fallback and load distribution information; and if one is using MX
resource records then for SMTP Relay servers there's no provision for publishing load distribution information.
However, SRV
-capable MTSes now exist. (The first was exim
, which has been SRV
-capable since 2005.) And for other service protocols, unencumbered with the baggage of MX
and NS
resource records, SRV
adoption is far more thorough and widespread. If you have a Microsoft Windows domain, for example, then a whole raft of services are located through SRV
lookups in the DNS. That's been the case for more than a decade, at this point.
The problem is that everyone thinks of HTTP, when HTTP is by far, nowadays in 2011, the exception and not the rule here.