From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Jan 21 14:56:10 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [158.36.41.162])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C19715661
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:55:59 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no)
Received: (qmail 46033 invoked by uid 1001); 21 Jan 2000 22:55:56 +0000 (GMT)
To: oppermann@pipeline.ch
Cc: louie@TransSys.COM, drosih@rpi.edu, jdp@polstra.com,
	current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:45:34 +0100"
References: <3888E18E.F1CBA39B@pipeline.ch>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.34.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:55:56 +0100
Message-ID: <46031.948495356@verdi.nethelp.no>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> > Second, a domain name can at most a single CNAME record associated
> > with it, and other other record types.  BIND will (should) barf on a
> > zone file containing the example you listed.
> 
> It does not. It will round-robin over the CNAME's.

See the documentation for the multiple-cnames option in BIND 8.2.2:

   If yes, multiple CNAME resource records will be allowed for a domain
   name. The default is no.  Allowing multiple CNAME records is against
   standards and is not recommended. Multiple CNAME support is available
   because previous versions of BIND allowed multiple CNAME records, and
   these records have been used for load balancing by a number of sites.

So I'd say this is not a good idea.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no


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