The RFC or the reason why you can not create CNAME record for t he "root record"
Barry Margolin
barmar at alum.mit.edu
Thu Jun 3 02:49:03 UTC 2004
In article <c9le43$78p$1 at sf1.isc.org>, phil-news-nospam at ipal.net wrote:
> 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
This is hardly the "one place" where CNAME would be useful. I expect
that for the cases you're concerned with, you also make use of it for
the www.<domain> name. The only problem you're encountering is that you
can't implement the <domain> mapping using the same technique as you use
for www.<domain>.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
More information about the bind-users
mailing list