In article <mailman.1441.1380841588.20661.bind-us...@lists.isc.org>, Casey Deccio <ca...@deccio.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Paul Wouters <p...@cypherpunks.ca> wrote: > > > You are why we can't have nice things :P > > > > We had enough Sitewinders. With DNSSEC on the endnode, your lies won't > > be believed anway. What you are trying is wrong, bad and broken. > > > > > This might be a fair statement in the right context. But it was taken out > of context--because I really didn't provide any. Not that I need to > justify my question, but since you brought it up, what I am looking to do > is decrease the risk of DNS resolution failures resulting from a namespace > transition by creating a fallback from the old to the new namespace. For > some definite period of time after the change, an NXDOMAIN in the old > namespace would result in a synthesized CNAME pointing to the same name in > the new namespace. Anyway, there might not be an easy way to to do it, and > we might just have to lose our safety net, but I wanted to ask users on the > list if there's some obscure configuration that might be helpful. Isn't this what DNAME is for? -- Barry Margolin Arlington, MA _______________________________________________ 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
