The RFC or the reason why you can not create CNAME record for the "root record"

[Preston Wade]

It seems that I have sparked some great discussion!  But what I keep =
going back to is does it even make sense, given the hierarchical =
structure of the DNS name space, to have records that typically =
represent host for domains?

Thanks,
Preston


-----Original Message-----
From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org]On
Behalf Of phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 1:37 PM
To: comp-protocols-dns-bind at isc.org
Subject: Re: The RFC or the reason why you can not create CNAME record
for the "root record"


phil-news-nospam at ipal.net wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 05:12:06 -0500 Barry Margolin =
<barmar at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> | RFC 1034 says: "The domain system provides such a feature [aliases]=20
> | using the canonical name (CNAME) RR.  A CNAME RR identifies its =
owner=20
> | name as an alias, and specifies the corresponding canonical name in =
the=20
> | RDATA section of the RR.  If a CNAME RR is present at a node, no =
other=20
> | data should be present; this ensures that the data for a canonical =
name=20
> | and its aliases cannot be different."
> |=20
> | Since a delegated zone name is required to have SOA and NS records, =
if=20
> | it also had a CNAME record it would violate the restriction in the =
last=20
> | sentence.

> So how do we fix this?  I think a hack/patch is the only way.  But I =
see
> two different ways to approach that.  Which one is likely to work in =
most
> cases?

Can't you rewrite the contents of the zonefiles to refer to the=20
new machines ? Present your zonefile and the functional changes
you need.



--=20
Peter H=E5kanson        =20
        IPSec  Sverige      ( At Gothenburg Riverside )
           Sorry about my e-mail address, but i'm trying to keep spam =
out,
	   remove "icke-reklam" if you feel for mailing me. Thanx.