Many A-records

[fih]

Good point!

I have been spending hours about this discussion the latest days. More and
more I'm convinced that how i work and always have worket is fine. But i
have to admit that there is no rules against having more than one A-record
which i always have believed.

My current thoughts leads to questions like. Ok if they use A-records
instead of Cnames i wonder what they do about the PTR records. I heave read
that it's OK to have multiple PTR records. But for applications that uses
A-records and PTR-records i guess it will not work. Examples i can think of
is Sendmail, NFS and Backup solutions. (I could be wrong here, if a resolver
recieves a list of PTR records it might be so that it will check for the
proper one, i don't know)

I guess the best method if using A-records only, is to have one A-record
which is the name of an IP and a corresponding PTR record. Then just adding
more A-records without PTR when needed instead of CNAMES and make sure all
applications that needs matching A/PTR uses the name with the matching PTR
record.

Please continue the discussion!

"Barry Margolin" <barmar at alum.mit.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:c5283d$vja$1 at sf1.isc.org...
> In article <c4s06k$n1k$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
>  Jeff Lasman <blists at nobaloney.net> wrote:
>
> > Every time you create a CNAME where you could have used an A record you
> > create a situation where every resolver looking for your service must
> > do two lookups instead of one.  Why would you do this?
>
> Unless the server is authoritative for both the CNAME record and its
> target.  In that case the server will return both records, and the
> resolver doesn't have to do any extra lookups.
>
> -- 
> Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
> Arlington, MA
> *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
>