> On 30 Jan 2016, at 21:57, John Levine wrote:
>
>> If chained CNAMEs work for you, more power to you. But don't be
>> surprised if they fail unexpectedly at some point.
>
> If they don't, you'll have a lot of unhappy users since there's a
> whole lot of the Internet they won't be able to see
In article ,
Grant Taylor wrote:
> I think chained CNAMEs fall into the gray area (no mans land) between
> zealots on either side of the RFC interpretation line.
>
> If chained CNAMEs work for you, more power to you. But don't be
> surprised if they fail unexpectedly at some point.
We shoul
Am 30.01.2016 um 22:40 schrieb Grant Taylor:
On 01/30/2016 04:44 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
From RFC 1034 - Domain names - concepts and facilities:
Of course, by the robustness principle, domain software should not fail
when presented with CNAME chains or loops; CNAME chains should be
followed a
>If chained CNAMEs work for you, more power to you. But don't be
>surprised if they fail unexpectedly at some point.
If they don't, you'll have a lot of unhappy users since there's a
whole lot of the Internet they won't be able to see.
Try www.apple.com and www.microsoft.com, both of which ha
On 01/30/2016 04:44 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
nonsense
Okay ...
From RFC 1034 - Domain names - concepts and facilities:
Of course, by the robustness principle, domain software should not fail
when presented with CNAME chains or loops; CNAME chains should be
followed and CNAME loops signalled a
Am 30.01.2016 um 03:45 schrieb Grant Taylor:
On 01/26/2016 04:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
violating what?
Chaining CNAMEs is a violation according to RFCs.
nonsense
From RFC 1034 - Domain names - concepts and facilities:
Of course, by the robustness principle, domain software should not f
On 2016-01-29 18:45, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 01/26/2016 04:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
violating what?
Chaining CNAMEs is a violation according to RFCs.
It works, but it is unsupported, and you can only blame yourself when
it doesn't.
Maybe I'm misremembering RFC 1034, but a CNAME chain onl
On 01/26/2016 04:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
violating what?
Chaining CNAMEs is a violation according to RFCs.
It works, but it is unsupported, and you can only blame yourself when it
doesn't.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
___
Please visit https:/
HONTVÁRI Levente wrote:
> I assumed that the root servers are only queried a few times a week
> (corresponding to the number of top level domains). The logs show a
> different picture, Queries to the root servers are quite frequent. What am I
> missing?
>
> I have attached a dnstop screen (local n
Am 27.01.2016 um 00:46 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 27.01.2016 um 00:36 schrieb Darcy Kevin (FCA):
Well, when I queried the name livetileedge.dsx.mp.microsoft.com, I got
a CNAME chain where all of the links in the chain had TTLs of 300
seconds or less:
livetileedge.dsx.mp.microsoft.com. 43 IN CN
Am 27.01.2016 um 00:36 schrieb Darcy Kevin (FCA):
Well, when I queried the name livetileedge.dsx.mp.microsoft.com, I got a CNAME
chain where all of the links in the chain had TTLs of 300 seconds or less:
livetileedge.dsx.mp.microsoft.com. 43 IN CNAME
livetileedge.dsx.mp.microsoft.com.akadns
t: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:07 AM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: frequent queries to root servers
Hi All,
I assumed that the root servers are only queried a few times a week
(corresponding to the number of top level domains). The logs show a different
picture, Queries to the root servers
Hi All,
I assumed that the root servers are only queried a few times a week
(corresponding to the number of top level domains). The logs show a
different picture, Queries to the root servers are quite frequent. What
am I missing?
I have attached a dnstop screen (local network traffic was fil
13 matches
Mail list logo
