Parent is a CNAME
Barry Margolin
barmar at alum.mit.edu
Wed Dec 2 17:52:01 UTC 2009
In article <mailman.1165.1259775639.14796.bind-users at lists.isc.org>,
Joseph S D Yao <jsdy at tux.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 12:47:08PM +0000, Sam Wilson wrote:
> > In article <mailman.1153.1259725836.14796.bind-users at lists.isc.org>,
> > Joseph S D Yao <jsdy at tux.org> wrote:
> [incorrectly]
> > > No.
> ...
> > Not true. CNAME chains - CNAMEs pointing to other CNAMEs - are
> > inefficient and discouraged but the DNS spec is built to ensure that
> > they work. Check out www.google.com sometime (or www.google.co.uk) and
> > wonder at how many people would be annoyed if they didn't.
>
>
> CNAME chains have nothing to do with this. THIS is perfectly legal:
>
> a CNAME b
> b CNAME c
> c CNAME d
> d CNAME extra-ordinary
I think he misunderstood you to be saying that the name that has a CNAME
can never appear on the *righthand* side of a RR. This is true for
records like MX and NS -- they mustn't point to aliases. CNAME chains
are the exception to this rule.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
More information about the bind-users
mailing list