Is there a limit on the number of IP addresses to a name?

[Susan Casserino]

It's not the forwarders (4.9.7) that is having the problem though.  The
failure is when you are logged directly on the DNS server.  The DNS 
servers are running QIP DDNS Server (BIND 8.1.2), which is Lucent's 
flavor of ISC's BIND 8.

Barry Margolin wrote:
> 
> In article <3911BD0E.9A138A86 at kodak.com>,
> Susan Casserino  <susan.casserino at kodak.com> wrote:
> >A problem was reported to me that lead me to an interesting question.
> >Is there a limit to how many IP addresses can be assigned to one name?
> >
> >I found 3 different nslookup/resolver scenarios with our UNIX systems
> >and resolvers.  They are all running Solaris, but are at different
> >patch levels.
> >
> >Our forwarders and external DNS servers are successful with both
> >nslookup & resolving.  They are running Quadritek QDDNS 4.9.7
> >and QIP DDNS Server (BIND 8.1.2) respectively.
> >
> >Our internal DNS servers fail on both nslookup & resolving.  They are
> >running QIP DDNS Server (BIND 8.1.2).
> >
> >An internal desktop using the internal DNS servers can resolve, but
> >not do a nslookup.
> >
> >The name I'm looking at is kodak.photonet.com, it has 34 IP's.  I used
> >http://www.demon.net/external/ntools.shtml to examine the data of
> >the specific host and that will give you "???" on the 31st entry.
> >I don't know why there would be a need to use so many addresses, but
> >regardless of why, it raised a valid question.
> 
> If a UDP DNS reply gets larger than about 500 bytes, it is truncated.  The
> client is supposed to retry the query using TCP instead of UDP.  However,
> BIND 4 doesn't support performing recursive queries using TCP, so you'll
> won't be able to do this through your forwarder until you upgrade it to
> BIND 8.
> 
> --
> Barry Margolin, barmar at genuity.net
> Genuity, Burlington, MA
> *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
> Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.