The RFC or the reason why you can not create CNAME record for t he "root record"
phil-news-nospam at ipal.net
phil-news-nospam at ipal.net
Wed Jun 2 18:16:23 UTC 2004
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 08:09:35 -0400 David Botham <DBotham at optimussolutions.com> wrote:
|> 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?
|
| "This" is not broken and therefore cannot be fixed. Change your mind
| instead.
Maybe we should just take CNAME out of the RFC altogether. I frequently
see many recommendations to NOT use it. And the one place where it would
be useful, it doesn't work (even though I am sure it can be fixed, and
would even be compliant if the standard were updated to allow it). As for
changing my mind, that won't happen. I have seen this done before and it
worked then. I will try what I can to make it work now. Only if every
possible way to try it fails will I give up.
You're welcome to provide constructive suggestions, such which of a few
ways to accomplish it might have a better chance of working.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the bind-users
mailing list