Can an NS point to a CNAME
Phil Mayers
p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk
Thu Aug 12 16:07:46 UTC 2010
On 12/08/10 16:34, Yohann Lepage wrote:
> 2010/8/12 Phil Mayers<p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk>:
>> Is this still the case (that NS->CNAME is invalid)?
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2181.txt
>
> 10.3. MX and NS records
>
> The domain name used as the value of a NS resource record, or part of
> the value of a MX resource record must not be an alias. Not only is
> the specification clear on this point, but using an alias in either
> of these positions neither works as well as might be hoped, nor well
> fulfills the ambition that may have led to this approach. This
> domain name must have as its value one or more address records.
> Currently those will be A records, however in the future other record
> types giving addressing information may be acceptable. It can also
> have other RRs, *but never a CNAME RR*.
>
> --
> Yohann
> www.2xyo.info
Thanks, but perhaps I should be more specific about what I'm asking:
Is it still the case that *Bind* will not follow a delegation where an
NS record points at a CNAME?
In any event, as has been pointed out to me, the zone is broken - I have
contacted the hostmaster - but I was curious that Bind did not appear to
be following the delegation *and* did not appear to be logging an error
(which may be my logging configuration).
More information about the bind-users
mailing list