D. J. Bernstein writes ("A6 unreliability"):
> * DNAME exacerbates all the problems of CNAME. DNAMEs can be wrapped
> inside DNAMEs---and this is _encouraged_! We'll have people setting
> up huge CNAME/DNAME chains to match their corporate structures.
Quite. I can't see any excuse for DNAME, frankly.
The only positive effect of DNAME I can think of at the moment is that
it might produce a bit of extra caching commonality. But, this is
only relevant if a DNAME is made of large domain and *many* of the
records in the DNAME domain are used.
In return for this we get all of the reliability problems Dan
mentioned, not to mention the fact that DNAME processing is quite a
complex task even under favourable conditions and implementations are
bound to be buggy, have security problems, etc.
Ian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
