From owner-freebsd-questions  Fri Sep 29  7: 8:52 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2859C37B624; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 07:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veager.siteplus.net (1Cust36.tnt9.chattanooga.tn.da.uu.net [63.39.120.36])
	by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA24221;
	Fri, 29 Sep 2000 07:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:08:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Weeks <jim@siteplus.net>
To: J Bacher <jb@jbacher.com>
Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: RE: DNS: having domain1.com and domain1.net point to the same IP.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0009290852460.8156-100000@ns.shawneelink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009291003240.625-100000@veager.siteplus.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, J Bacher wrote:

> 
> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Andy Wolf wrote:
> >  
> > > We use two A records now and therefor accept redundancy. The reverse lookup
> > > of course can only point to one of the labels.
> > 
> > The general consensus throughout the industry seems to be that C names are
> > evil.
> > 
> > I have never been bitten by just using A names.
> 
> 
> The efficiency of the CNAME record is that is eliminates oversight when
> re-IPing a network, subnetwork or group of servers.

Agreed...  

I could also see this subject turning into a HOLY war.  Similar to
that of how small reverse blocks of IP's should be handled. 

Cheers,

Jim



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message