cname quick question

[Jim Reid]

>>>>> "Tal" == Tal Dayan <tal at zapta.com> writes:

    Tal> On the need side, I respectfully disagree with you that CNAME
    Tal> records are a 'stupid but unnecessary trick'. Luckily enough,
    Tal> the Founding Fathers of DNS did recognize the usefulness of
    Tal> aliasing and provided us with CNAME records.

Either you are being obtuse or deliberately provocative. You are also
distorting what I said. CNAMEs are useful. I didn't say otherwise. I
did say CNAMEs were not appropriate for the purpose that you want to
abuse them for. This has been patiently explained to you but you are
still persisting with your absurd idea. Here's an extract from
RFC1034. Read it and please go away until you understand it fully:

	If a CNAME RR is present at a node, no other data should be
	present; this ensures that the data for a canonical name and
	its aliases cannot be different.  This rule also insures that
	a cached CNAME can be used without checking with an
	authoritative server for other RR types.

You also have been told several times now that your perceived need is
based on misunderstanding and ignorance stemming from blatantly
incompetent administrative practices and procedures. Yet you persist.

There are other simple and commonly used ways of solving your
"problem" that don't mean protocol changes or rewriting a fundamental
RFC. Why don't you just use them? And as I said already - but you
don't seem to have understood - RFC1034 is not broken and does not
need fixing. If it did, it would have been done by smarter people than
you or I some time in the 13-14 years since it was written. This
hasn't happened for the very good reason that it simply is not
necessary.

    Tal> As for the solution side, I understand that you already gave
    Tal> up on finding a creative solution that will remove the
    Tal> singular restriction of 'no CNAME for an host whose name is
    Tal> the domain itself' that will be fully compatible with
    Tal> existing DNS servers.

I didn't give up. I dismissed it out of hand. It's such a stupid,
worthless, unnecessary and irrelevant idea it doesn't deserve a
microsecond of consideration. In fact I've wasted too much of my time
trying to explain your folly. No more. My patience with you is
completely exhausted.

    Tal> I hope that other DNS gurus on this list will take this not
    Tal> as an attack on a great software which BIND is but as an
    Tal> intellectual challenge to provide DNS users around the world
    Tal> with an even better tool.

Now you're confusing protocols with implementations and tools.

There's no point continuing this discussion. You're not prepared to
listen to rational arguments. You also refuse to appreciate what's
involved in looking after the the tens of millions of hosts and
applications that are already using DNS software and the DNS protocols
as they stand today. Please take your solipsistic - go look it up in a
dictionary! - view of the DNS back to your own private world and leave
the rest of us alone.