8.2.1 CNAMEs not authoritative?

[Mark_Andrews at isc.org]

	A concrete example would be useful as I definitly get authorative
	answers off my test server.

	Mark


; <<>> DiG 8.2 <<>> d.example 
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; QUERY SECTION:
;;	d.example, type = A, class = IN

;; ANSWER SECTION:
d.example.		1h15m IN CNAME	a.example.
a.example.		1h15m IN A	144.14.15.200

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
example.		1H IN NS	bsdi.dv.isc.org.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
bsdi.dv.isc.org.	1D IN A		130.155.191.233

;; Total query time: 1 msec
;; FROM: bsdi.dv.isc.org to SERVER: default -- 130.155.191.233
;; WHEN: Tue Aug 17 09:42:07 1999
;; MSG SIZE  sent: 27  rcvd: 111

> I have installed BIND 8.2.1 on a Solaris 2.5.1 machine to try it out, and
> have noticed that if I query the server, all of the CNAMEs come back as
> non-authoritative answers, even though the server is authoritative for the
> domains (i.e. A records come back fine).
> 
> Any ideas, or is this usual?  I do have multiple-cnames yes; and forward
> first; to my forwarders in my options, and I have no $ORIGIN or $TTL set in
> these master zones yet.
> 
> Other than this issue, everything seems to work fine.
> 
> Thanks
> Matthew
> 
> Matthew Mengel
> Matthew.Mengel at usq.edu.au
> Network Administrator
> University of Southern Queensland
> TOOWOOMBA  QUEENSLAND  AUSTRALIA
> 
> 
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org