The RFC or the reason why you can not create CNAME record for the "root record"
Preston Wade
Preston_Wade at hilton.com
Tue Jun 1 19:48:14 UTC 2004
It seems that I have sparked some great discussion! But what I keep =
going back to is does it even make sense, given the hierarchical =
structure of the DNS name space, to have records that typically =
represent host for domains?
Thanks,
Preston
-----Original Message-----
From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org]On
Behalf Of phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 1:37 PM
To: comp-protocols-dns-bind at isc.org
Subject: Re: The RFC or the reason why you can not create CNAME record
for the "root record"
phil-news-nospam at ipal.net wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 05:12:06 -0500 Barry Margolin =
<barmar at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> | RFC 1034 says: "The domain system provides such a feature [aliases]=20
> | using the canonical name (CNAME) RR. A CNAME RR identifies its =
owner=20
> | name as an alias, and specifies the corresponding canonical name in =
the=20
> | RDATA section of the RR. If a CNAME RR is present at a node, no =
other=20
> | data should be present; this ensures that the data for a canonical =
name=20
> | and its aliases cannot be different."
> |=20
> | Since a delegated zone name is required to have SOA and NS records, =
if=20
> | it also had a CNAME record it would violate the restriction in the =
last=20
> | sentence.
> So how do we fix this? I think a hack/patch is the only way. But I =
see
> two different ways to approach that. Which one is likely to work in =
most
> cases?
Can't you rewrite the contents of the zonefiles to refer to the=20
new machines ? Present your zonefile and the functional changes
you need.
--=20
Peter H=E5kanson =20
IPSec Sverige ( At Gothenburg Riverside )
Sorry about my e-mail address, but i'm trying to keep spam =
out,
remove "icke-reklam" if you feel for mailing me. Thanx.
More information about the bind-users
mailing list