multiple-cnames support in 8.2.2-P5

[Kevin Darcy]

Schaefer, Paul A wrote:

> 3.  Kevin Darcy describes multiple-cnames as inherently evil.  What's that
> all about?  I just want to do load sharing among 3 different machines.  They
> are existing production machines that I want to use for a new purpose.  I am
> forced to use the existing names, I can't add new interfaces, and I can't
> afford any more hardware.  So what's the problem with multiple cnames?

If _that's_ all you want to do, why don't you have the name own multiple
A records? I mean using the *existing* addresses that those alias targets
currently resolve to. This doesn't require any more interfaces or hardware. Or
are you trying to "weight" the addresses in the RRset somehow?

Whether multiple-cnames is "evil" or not is basically irrelevant. The
functionality simply isn't supported by later versions of BIND, so you need to
find alternatives.


- Kevin