newbie question: can canonical name be the same as db name?
Kevin Darcy
kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Fri Feb 7 17:29:31 UTC 2003
azu wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I would to know if it's possible to have a canonical name the same as
>a declared zone. Here's what I mean.
>
>someserver IN A 1.2.3.4.
>research.someserver IN CNAME someserver
>
>
>In /etc/named
>
>zone "research.someserver" IN {
> type master;
> file "db.research.someserver";
>};
>
>and in /var/named i have a db.research.someserver
>
I think you're a little confused. If you put an owner name of
"someserver" into the "research.someserver" zone file, then in the
absence of any $ORIGIN directives, it'll be interpreted as the name
"someserver.research.someserver.". Similarly, an owner name of
"research.someserver" in that zone file will be interpreted as the name
"research.someserver.research.someserver.". As long as
"research.someserver.research.someserver." appears nowhere else in your
namespace, it is perfectly legal for the second name to be an alias of
the first, but it's probably not what you want.
If you were to dot-terminate those names (or, in a more roundabout way,
set the $ORIGIN to "."), then suddenly "someserver." no longer belongs
in the zonefile, because the name "someserver." is not in the
"research.someserver." zone (it would belong in the "someserver." or
root zone). Also, the name "research.someserver." under those conditions
could not own a CNAME record, because a name that owns a CNAME record
cannot own any other records, and presumably you have an SOA record and
NS records in that zone, all with the name "research.someserver.".
- Kevin
More information about the bind-users
mailing list