round-robin using cnames

[Kevin Darcy]

beetle bailey wrote:

> Are there any problems with having multiple A records?  All three names
> (name1, name2, name3) need to be valid as well.

The only drawback of having multiple A records referring to the same address is
that it creates an ambiguity as far as reverse mappings are concerned -- e.g.
should the address map back to "name1" or "bobo"? But this is usually of no
consequence since multi-A-record names are generally for the consumption of
clients, and reverse-mappings generally for the consumption of servers (there
are exceptions to these generalities, of course). My homegrown maintenance
system here doesn't generate reverse records for multi-A-record names at all.

> Also, if you happen to know
> off the top of your head which RFC's in particular are relevant I'd like to
> check them out.  Thanks again.

RFC 2181, Section 10.1.


- Kevin