In article <mailman.1165.1259775639.14796.bind-us...@lists.isc.org>, Joseph S D Yao <j...@tux.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 12:47:08PM +0000, Sam Wilson wrote: > > In article <mailman.1153.1259725836.14796.bind-us...@lists.isc.org>, > > Joseph S D Yao <j...@tux.org> wrote: > [incorrectly] > > > No. > ... > > Not true. CNAME chains - CNAMEs pointing to other CNAMEs - are > > inefficient and discouraged but the DNS spec is built to ensure that > > they work. Check out www.google.com sometime (or www.google.co.uk) and > > wonder at how many people would be annoyed if they didn't. > > > CNAME chains have nothing to do with this. THIS is perfectly legal: > > a CNAME b > b CNAME c > c CNAME d > d CNAME extra-ordinary I think he misunderstood you to be saying that the name that has a CNAME can never appear on the *righthand* side of a RR. This is true for records like MX and NS -- they mustn't point to aliases. CNAME chains are the exception to this rule. -- Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
