home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!ieunet!tcdcs!maths.tcd.ie!ajudge
- From: ajudge@maths.tcd.ie (Alan Judge)
- Subject: CNAME records and MX/NS records
- Message-ID: <1993Jan11.192147.8578@maths.tcd.ie>
- Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:21:47 GMT
- Lines: 37
-
- Am I correct in saying that the data in an MX or NS record may not
- be a CNAME, so that
- foo.bar. MX mail.foo.bar.
- mail.foo.bar. CNAME realhost.foo.bar.
- (and similarly for ns.foo.bar.)
- is incorrect?
-
- (We have been doing this for a while, apparently without problems.
- Now it appears that this is bad. What gives?
-
-
- If so, what do people do when they want a nice logical separation
- between services and hosts. Is it permissible/reasonable to have
- multiple A records for a single IP address? Will anything get
- upset that a reverse lookup does not return the same name?
-
- Specifically, is something like
- foo.bar. MX mail.foo.bar.
- foo.bar. NS ns.foo.bar.
-
- mail.foo.bar. A 1.2.3.4
- realname.foo.bar. A 1.2.3.4
-
- ns.foo.bar. A 1.2.3.5
- fred.foo.bar. A 1.2.3.5
-
- a reasonable and sane thing to do.
-
- I know that parent domains will still have to be told if an NS
- moves (to update glue), but this arrangement seems nicer.
-
- Comments?
- --
- Alan Judge ajudge@maths.tcd.ie a.k.a. amjudge@dsg.cs.tcd.ie +353-1-7021782
-
- "The path of my life is strewn with cowpats from the devils' own herd."
- -- Edmund Blackadder II
-