home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!cliff
- From: cliff@garnet.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost)
- Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
- Subject: Re: CNAME records and MX/NS records
- Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:47:39 GMT
- Organization: University of California, Berkeley
- Lines: 41
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <1isteb$nmc@agate.berkeley.edu>
- References: <1993Jan11.192147.8578@maths.tcd.ie> <1993Jan11.203058.28778@mp.cs.niu.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu
-
- |> >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.
- |>
- |> This is permissible. I won't comment on whether it is sane, but it
- |> surely does not seem reasonable.
-
- It appears reasonable (to me) if you think of providing these services on
- multiple hosts, so that if one host goes down hard the other one is still
- providing the function. Eg:
-
- ; sam and mary are identically configured for processing email:
-
- sam.foo.bar. A 1.2.3.4
- mary.foo.bar. A 1.2.4.4
- mail.foo.bar. A 1.2.3.4
- A 1.2.4.4
-
- ; fred and betsy are running identical authoritative nameservers:
-
- fred.foo.bar. A 1.2.3.5
- betsy.foo.bar. A 1.2.4.5
- ns.foo.bar. A 1.2.3.5
- A 1.2.4.5
-
-
- From experience we can say it works well for mail and less wonderfully (but
- still useful) for nameservice. The reason it is less useful for nameservice
- is the slew of software out there which is configurable for one and only one
- nameserver IP address.
-
- Cliff Frost
- UC Berkeley
-