Allow Multiple-Cnames in BIND 9

[Doug Barton]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Jim Reid wrote:

> >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Manning <bmanning at ISI.EDU> writes:
>
>     Bill> 	bind 9 encourages consistant practice, sometimes w/o
>     Bill> anything other than "it ought to work this way".  The core
>     Bill> specs are often vauge, which leads to commentary &
>     Bill> clarifications.
>
> That's as may be. But RFC1034 could hardly be any clearer about
> multiple CNAMEs:
>
>     If a CNAME RR is present at a node, no other data should be present

	And the traditional response to your traditional response is that
a second CNAME doesn't constitute "other data," since it's the same RR
type. Whether that's true or not is open to debate, but there are some of
us who don't think it's cut and dry.

	To try and lead the conversation down a more productive route, we
occasionally get complaints from end users who are stuck behind really
old/broken resolvers that don't handle the truncated bit properly, thereby
preventing them from resolving addresses for hosts whose A RR set is too
large to fit into a UDP packet. One thing we've considered is patching
BIND to always return some random subset of the possible A records that
will fit into a UDP packet... any comments on the pro's or con's of that
approach? Does anyone have a working model that I could crib from? :)

Doug
-- 
    "We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."
	- George W. Bush, President of the United States
          September 20, 2001

         Do YOU Yahoo!?