The RFC or the reason why you can not create CNAME record for the "root record"
phil-news-nospam at ipal.net
phil-news-nospam at ipal.net
Wed Jun 2 04:52:40 UTC 2004
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:37:13 +0000 (UTC) phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu wrote:
| 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]
|> | using the canonical name (CNAME) RR. A CNAME RR identifies its owner
|> | name as an alias, and specifies the corresponding canonical name in the
|> | RDATA section of the RR. If a CNAME RR is present at a node, no other
|> | data should be present; this ensures that the data for a canonical name
|> | and its aliases cannot be different."
|> |
|> | Since a delegated zone name is required to have SOA and NS records, if
|> | it also had a CNAME record it would violate the restriction in the last
|> | 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
| new machines ? Present your zonefile and the functional changes
| you need.
It needs to refer to another domain under another administrative control.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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