On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 12:47:08PM +0000, Sam Wilson wrote: > In article <[email protected]>, > Joseph S D Yao <[email protected]> wrote: [incorrectly] > > No. ... > Not true. CNAME chains - CNAMEs pointing to other CNAMEs - are > inefficient and discouraged but the DNS spec is built to ensure that > they work. Check out www.google.com sometime (or www.google.co.uk) and > wonder at how many people would be annoyed if they didn't.
CNAME chains have nothing to do with this. THIS is perfectly legal: a CNAME b b CNAME c c CNAME d d CNAME extra-ordinary although, as mentioned, inefficient. THIS is not legal: a CNAME b a CNAME c a A 1.1.1.1 ... > > Why not do this? > > > > subdomain.b A 7.8.9.10 > > subdomain.b NS ns1.subdomain.b > > ns1.subdomain.b A 7.9.11.13 > > If b was itself delegated the CNAME would be problematical again. ... And if all the name servers crashed, then the domain would be unserved. Why introduce unnecessary hypotheticals? ;-) And, as pointed out in another post, the CNAME does not appear to be problematic in this case, even were it to exist. -- /*********************************************************************\ ** ** Joe Yao [email protected] - Joseph S. D. Yao ** \*********************************************************************/ _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
