Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:43:11 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: Studded@dal.net Cc: karl@Mcs.Net, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, lists@tar.com, terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: Moving to a more current BIND Message-ID: <199708041743.KAA04371@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199708040518.WAA29255@mail.san.rr.com> from "Studded" at Aug 3, 97 10:17:57 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Using CNAMEs in NS lines is in violation of the BIND rules and will break. > > It is a violation of the spec, but it will also work. Just for > fun, I added an ns record for a cname. From an 8.1.1 system to another, > and from a 4.9.6 system nslookup specifying the cnamed server worked fine. > I don't use this feature myself, but I know others that do (with 8.1.1 > systems) and it works. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. In the future > compatability for this could end. > > For the details on why this is bad, see the BIND FAQ, > /usr/src/contrib/bind/doc/misc/FAQ.2of2 Question 6.6. In the future, I will have more hardware and the problem will silently disappear. I was only complaining that bind complains to other people to get them to brow-beat me, yet then proceeds to work. Better that it complain to me, and let me ignore it. Yes, at my peril. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708041743.KAA04371>