Date: 13 Jun 2002 01:44:15 -0500 From: Rob Hughes <rob@robhughes.com> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is this BIND setup wrong? (Non-existent host/domain) Message-ID: <1023950655.11653.17.camel@kahuna-ws.robhughes.com> In-Reply-To: <1023949476.3d083aa4a394a@mail.broadpark.no> References: <1023949476.3d083aa4a394a@mail.broadpark.no>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 01:24, johann@broadpark.no wrote: > Hi. > > I have reasons to believe this BIND setup is wrong; only ns1 resolves. > Whether ns1 as A instead of muay, basing CNAME's off a @ -- none will > function. > Yes, it is wrong, at least according to standard practice. You shouldn't have a name server that's a cname record, and especially not a SOA record. The main reason for this is that name servers, above all others, should properly resolve, both forward and reverse. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA9CD8//9y+qWKu6HERAo4OAJ4x7cyJrWdbXkAaMpPV2JF1qvYWfACdH2O9 Cese9IINvS3hF6KYlNUGZos= =oHZM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1023950655.11653.17.camel>