multiple-cnames support in 8.2.2-P5

[Schaefer, Paul A]

>>Schaefer, Paul A wrote:

>>  I just want to do load sharing among different machines.  They
>> are existing machines that I want to use for a new purpose.  I am
>> forced to use the existing names, I can't add new interfaces, and I can't
>> afford any more hardware.

>If _that's_ all you want to do, why don't you have the name own multiple
>A records? I mean using the *existing* addresses that those alias targets
>currently resolve to. This doesn't require any more interfaces or hardware.
>Or are you trying to "weight" the addresses in the RRset somehow?

Maybe I am making this too hard, but these machines have very different
functions.  They aren't identical by any means.  DNS is the only name
service we share across OS, so for me to give them identical names would
cause a lot of problems.  Let me know if I'm missing something obvious
please.

>Whether multiple-cnames is "evil" or not is basically irrelevant. The
>functionality simply isn't supported by later versions of BIND, so you need
to
>find alternatives.

Irrelevant to me too, just curious about why it is a subversive practice.  

-Paul

Paul Schaefer
UNIX SA
Cutler-Hammer