On 27 Jul 2007, at 10:43, Andrew McNabb wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 12:35:58AM -0600, Michael L Torrie wrote:
CNAME's are kind of funny aren't they. Most of us probably think
of the
term (colloquially), "Canonical Name," as being exactly the
reverse of
what a CNAME is. At least to me.
I think we just mix things up when we talk about it. Suppose we have
the following:
athena IN A 192.168.1.1
www IN CNAME athena
We imprecisely say stuff like "www is a CNAME for athena." If we
think
about the two lines together, though, we will say "192.168.1.1 is the
address for athena, and athena is the CNAME for www." So www is the
alias, and athena is the canonical name.
If we were more careful, we probably wouldn't get confused.
To quote DJB:
Don't use [CNAME] if there are any other records for [the fully
qualified domain name]. Don't use [CNAME] for common aliases; use
[the fully qualified domain name] instead. Remember the wise words of
Inigo Montoya: ``You keep using CNAME records. I do not think they
mean what you think they mean.'' (http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/tinydns-
data.html)
The above record would be written like this in TinyDNS:
+athena.domain.com:192.168.1.1:3600
Not to start a war, but doesn't that look much easier?
Jonathan
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
