Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually no. That is not correct. I did some experimentation using
BIND 8 and 9 as root servers. BIND 8 does not support
*. CNAME some.host.name.
Actually all versions of BIND support "* CNAME".
Sorry - your right - its DNAME it does not do.
But BIND 9 does.
I know it sounds terrible to you but I think the RFC is flexible on
that. Your the expert - you look into it. So it would be so nice if I
could under BIND 9 do:
*. NS some.host.name.
Wildcard matching has the wrong semantics (1 vs many labels)
for NS records. Even if the semantics where addressed you
then have to set up nameservers to do wildcard processing
while looking for the relevent zone. This implies having
a copy of the parent zone so you can know what query names
don't match the wildcard.
Ya I know. Thats the whole point behind what i'm advocating for AS112.
Those are the servers I would wildcard too. At least i would like to
run the experiment. I have found some servers that do *. NS - or so i'm
told by their support tech community. But not BIND. BIND should be
flexible and allow that.
regards
joe baptista
--
Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive,
Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Office: +1 (202) 517-1593
Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
begin:vcard
fn:Joe Baptista
n:Baptista;Joe
org:PublicRoot Consortium
adr:;;963 Ford Street;Peterborough;Ontario;K9J 5V5 ;Canada
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:PublicRoot Representative
tel;fax:+1 (509) 479-0084
tel;cell:+1 (416) 912-6551
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.publicroot.org
version:2.1
end:vcard
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
