Why the WWW.?

[Kevin Darcy]

Thor Kottelin wrote:

> BIND Users Mailing List wrote:
>
> > From: crzzy1 at digizen.net
>
> > I noticed that some URL's don't use the "WWW." prefix,
> > The root zone files don't seem to list the WWW. for the resolution of
> > these names.
> > This would seemingly put control of the WWW. option on the host end.
>
> It's not an option, it's a host name or an alias that points to a host
> name. Host names are defined in the zone file for the relevant domain.
>
> > how does my local name server sees that the WWW. is implied and doesn't
> > know it isn't FTP or something.
>
> When you try to resolve a host name on a remote domain, your local name
> server gets the answer from one of the authoritative servers for the
> domain in question. E.g. "www.domain.example." and "ftp.domain.example."
> are totally different queries.
>
> > Is the omission of the WWW. a function of the hosting server?
>
> You can run a web site on any legally named host; there's nothing magic
> about web sites that aren't named "www".
>
> > If so, what would be the parameters that one would look for in setting
> > up/disabling this feature?
>
> Create an A or CNAME record for the name you wish your web site to be
> known by.

Um, actually, if you're trying to create a name that is the same as the zone
which contains it, you can't use a CNAME. Attempting to do so will give you
the infamous "CNAME and other data" error. An A record is your only option
in that case. There's no problem, of course, if the subdomain isn't a
separate zone, e.g. hairy.ape.com could be a CNAME as long as it wasn't a
zone, and this is true even if there are names underneath it, e.g.
big.hairy.ape.com.


- Kevin