From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Jun 3 22:52:17 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail1.noc0.hsacorp.net (mail1.noc0.hsacorp.net [208.247.171.140]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8286E37B939 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:52:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jconner@enterit.com) Received: from [24.216.177.145] (HELO CONCON.enterit.com) by mail1.noc0.hsacorp.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.2.4) with ESMTP id 13314856; Sun, 04 Jun 2000 01:52:11 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000604015856.0208e308@mail.enterit.com> X-Sender: jconner@mail.enterit.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 02:01:46 -0400 To: Gabriel Ambuehl , "f.johan.beisser" From: Jim Conner Subject: Re[2]: IP vs CNAME Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <105123841554.20000602214025@buz.ch> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 09:40 PM 6/2/00 +0200, Gabriel Ambuehl wrote: > > generally, i think it's better to do IP based virtualhosting. > > it's not so much of a performance issue, it just makes it cleaner with > > older browsers, and makes it easier to track problems with servers. > >Considering the fact that IPs are getting rare (US people don't notice >this as likely as we in Europe. RIPE would kill small ISPs doing IP >based virtualhosting) I would suggest to do standard non-IP (AKA HTTP >1.1) virtualhosting. If you think you'll have enough IPs until you get >new ones (and that could be delayed until IPv6 is widely available) >you should do IP based virtualhosting. In any other cases, I'd suggest >to use simple namebased virtualhosts. Things change if you want to >offer SSL or anonymous FTP, of course. > >BTW: Why is my BIND complaining about zonefiles >without any A records but just CNAMES? If I add ONE single A record, >it stops complaining... Is there a way to get it working without a >bogus record for such "CNAME only" domains? Im reading through this thread right now and haven't gotten all the way through it but I decided to go ahead and answer this question. A CNAME vs an A name is quite simple. A CNAME points to an A name. You can't have a CNAME without a proper A name. So this is why you would get a bogus record. If you have nothing for the CNAME to point to how can you use a CNAME? You can't :) - Jim Shouldn't this thread have been called: A names vs CNAMEs? >Best regards, > Gabriel > > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Today's errors, in contrast: Windows - "Invalid page fault in module kernel32.dll at 0032:A16F2935" UNIX - "segmentation fault - core dumped" Humanous Beingsus - "OOPS, I've fallen and I can't get up" ------------------------------- Jim Conner NOTJames jconner@enterit.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message