Are you asking if the target of a CNAME need be an FQDN if $ORIGIN is defined? If so, no, I use short names (no trailing dot) all the time.
From: John Miller [mailto:johnm...@brandeis.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 05:49 PM To: Bind Users Mailing List <bind-users@lists.isc.org> Subject: Re: RFC requirements for relative CNAME targets? On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Charles Swiger <cswi...@mac.com<mailto:cswi...@mac.com>> wrote: On Jul 18, 2013, at 1:18 PM, John Miller <johnm...@brandeis.edu<mailto:johnm...@brandeis.edu>> wrote: > I know that for the following record in example.com<http://example.com>'s > zone file: > > host.example.com<http://host.example.com>. IN CNAME otherhost > > BIND will return: > > host.example.com<http://host.example.com>. <TTL> IN CNAME > otherhost.example.com<http://otherhost.example.com>. Assuming $ORIGIN is set to example.com<http://example.com>, but yes. > Is this behavior required anywhere in the RFCs, or would > > host.example.com<http://host.example.com>. <TTL> IN CNAME otherhost. > > be equally valid from an RFC perspective? Obviously this would also pertain > to NS, MX, SRV, PTR, etc. records. "otherhost." is equally valid from an RFC perspective, or "otherhost.other.domain." If there is a trailing dot, the CNAME target is assumed to be fully qualified, otherwise $ORIGIN is appended just as it would be for any other record using an unqualified name. Regards, -- -Chuck I think what I was getting at was whether appending $ORIGIN to an unqualified target--only talking target, not label--was _required_ by the RFCs, and if so, the RFC/section. I'll read through 'em; was just hoping someone knew the answer off the top of their head. John
_______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
