multiple-cnames support in 8.2.2-P5

[Schaefer, Paul A]

Thanks Kevin (and Steve W.)

Hadn't considered that multiple A records for the same IP might not be an
error condition.  That will work.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Darcy [mailto:kcd at daimlerchrysler.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:30 AM
> To: 'bind-users at isc.org'
> Subject: Re: multiple-cnames support in 8.2.2-P5
> 
> 
> 
> No, what I mean is just have a single "round robin" name that 
> resolves to all
> of the IP addresses. This would be in *addition* to the 
> existing "www", "ftp",
> "mail" etc. names. There's no rule that says you can't have 
> multiple A records
> referring to the same IP address. You wouldn't have to give 
> up any of your
> existing names. The only significant thing you'd lose would 
> be the weighting
> behavior, but that's hit-or-miss anyway since most other 
> nameservers out there
> aren't going to handle your multiple-cnames very well 
> (remember that most of
> the responses clients typically get are from their local 
> nameservers' caches,
> not directly from your nameservers).
> 
> 
> - Kevin
> 
> Schaefer, Paul A wrote:
> 
> > >>Schaefer, Paul A wrote:
> >
> > >>  I just want to do load sharing among different machines.  They
> > >> are existing 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.
> >
> > >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?
> >
> > Maybe I am making this too hard, but these machines have 
> very different
> > functions.  They aren't identical by any means.  DNS is the 
> only name
> > service we share across OS, so for me to give them 
> identical names would
> > cause a lot of problems.  Let me know if I'm missing 
> something obvious
> > please.
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > Irrelevant to me too, just curious about why it is a 
> subversive practice.
> >
> > -Paul
> >
> > Paul Schaefer
> > UNIX SA
> > Cutler-Hammer
> 
> 
> 
> 
>