cname quick question

[Erik Aronesty]

Tim,

1 - All the resolvers on the planet already support this feature - if they
follow the RFC.  Also, the feature is "backward compatible" - so you don't
have to make changes to servers - if you don't want to.  Finally, BIND
versions 4 though 8.2.2 supported this feature - so most servers already
support it anyway.

2 - No you can't expect companies with real network infrastructures to 'tell
you' when their IP addresses change.  That's ridiculous.  Especially if the
firm has 10,000+ users.

3- I have resorted to creating a "com." zone on my authoritative only
servers, and then placing the CNAMEs in the "com." zone.  This works, but
it's a horrible hack.

4- ISC changed the functionality of their system in a maintenance release.
They did not provide a workable alternative - and did not consider the
change with mentioning on their web site.

5- They could have waited 1 or two revs, at least until DNAME's were ready,
to make such a impacting change.

6- There is absolutely no semantic reason to restrict CNAMEs from a
particular "node" in a tree of recursive information because of the
structure of some "file on disk".  IE: DNS is not BIND.  If the resolver
algorithm supports the feature - then it was probably a failure in the RFC
to elucidate a special case.

            - Erik


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Maestas" <tmaestas at dnsconsultants.com>
To: <bind-users at isc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 12:33 AM
Subject: RE: cname quick question


>
>
> > As a user I understand more on the need side and less on the solution
side.
> > With the increasing trend of outsourcing, co-branding, and partnership
on
> > the Internet, it is more and more common that we, DNS users, need to
specify
> > domain name to a server that is not in our control. In many cases, we
can
> > solve this by using a CNAME record. However, when the aliasing is for
the
> > domain itself, we do have a problem. The simple 'solution' of using an A
> > record works for a while until the other party changes their IP for one
> > reason or another. When this happens, your service is practically down
until
> > you diagnose the problem, change the A record and let it propagate.
>
> In my opinion, if you have outsourced to a company that
> doesn't have the common courtesy to inform you that
> the server that is hosting your site is being re-addressed,
> then you are being ripped off, whatever you are paying.  It
> seems to me that it is *far* less work to insure that you
> have an agreement with your hosting providor that states
> that you will be notified of any IP changes to the server
> hosting your site than to modify all of the DNS servers on the
> internet and re-write the RFC's.
>
> Any issues that make it impractical to use an A record on
> the zone name, in my opinion, are procedure/vendor-relationship
> based, rather than strictly technical.
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>