On Thu, 28 May 2020, dagon wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 01:02:47AM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
dagon <da...@sudo.sh> wrote:
-- Tests for ("improper") horizontal vs. vertical CNAMEs. Some
recursive speakers fail; some complain ("BAD (HORIZONTAL)
REFERRAL", but answer), and some follow without complaint.
Can you explain what these are, please?
If a canonical answer points to the same level as the 'owner name',
then the left and right sides share NS. (This is the most common
case, and even outlined in 1034.) If this discovery occurs during a
CNAME chain chase with yet another empty answer, the NS is in a sense
making a referral to itself, or its pool of secondary NS serving the
same delegation cut level---the bad horizontal referral.
It sounds like "horizontal" means within the same zone, and "vertical"
means a different zone. I don't know what you mean by "level" -- same
number of components in the name? All but the last component the same?
In the same zone? Something else?
In RFC 1034 CNAMEs are intended as short term transition aidss, sort of
like yellow forwarding stickers on paper mail. Now they're mostly used to
dynamically delegate names across authority boundaries, which works pretty
well, but there's a lot of ancient cruft still sticking to them.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
