additional-from-cache and CNAME records

[Jeremie Le Hen]

> > Whatever the value of "additional-from-cache yes", ``a-name.example.com''
> > and ``point-inside.example.com'' are always answered but this is not the
> > case for ``point-outside.example.com''.  But when "additional-from-cache"
> > is disabled, then the latter won't be answered any longer when queried with
> > an A record.  In this case, it would indeed normally answers with the CNAME
> > record, despite the query is an A, AFAIK.  Unfortunatelly, I must
> > explicitly ask for a CNAME here.
> 
> Isn't that what you want to happen?  You said you want to "disable 
> exposure of cached private informations".  Since your server is not 
> authoritative for another-domain.com, this A record would have to come 
> from the cache.  So your server just responds with the CNAME record, and 
> the server that's querying it is expected to follow the alias itself.

I agree that my name server is not authoritative for ``another-domain.com.'',
but I see ``another-name.at.another-domain.com.'' as only *data* of the
CNAME record.  I thought this has nothing to do with the name server cache.
Furthermore, as Ronan Flood pointed out (see my previous mail), the server
will respond correctly when queried *non-recursively* for an A record
with "additional-from-cache" disabled.

The question is ``Why does the server refuse to answer when queried
recursively for an A record with "additional-from-cache" disabled, while
the real record is a CNAME pointing to a record which we are not
authoritave on ?

-- 
Jeremie LE HEN aka TtZ/TataZ                          jeremie.le-hen at epita.fr
                                                                 ttz at epita.fr
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!