From owner-freebsd-hubs Fri Jan 23 07:54:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA13037 for freebsd-hubs-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:54:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hubs@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from opus.cts.cwu.edu (skynyrd@opus.cts.cwu.edu [198.104.92.71]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA13029 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:54:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from skynyrd@opus.cts.cwu.edu) Received: from localhost (skynyrd@localhost) by opus.cts.cwu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA06654; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:54:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from skynyrd@opus.cts.cwu.edu) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:54:25 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Timmons To: Jesper Skriver cc: John-Mark Gurney , John Polstra , Garrett Wollman , hubs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: need for another cvsup site? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hubs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org When I saw John-Mark's message I wondered about the compliance of such a technique with the applicable RFC's. About the only thing I could find was a snippet from the old BIND faq, included in the v8 distribution as doc/misc/FAQ.2of2. This statement is attributed to Vixie in the context of some sort of hack using multiple CNAMES. 570 Note that having multiple CNAME RR's at a given name is 571 meaningless according to the DNS RFCs but BIND doesn't mind (in 572 fact it doesn't even complain). If you call 573 gethostbyname("hydra.ugly.vix.com") (try it!) you will get I get the feeling that it is one of those things which is not required by a name server implementation; BIND at some point apparantly provided the functionality and as of v8 may no longer do so. -Chris On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Jesper Skriver wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > John Polstra scribbled this message on Jan 20: > > > Yes, that would be a lot better. You simply give cvsup.freebsd.org > > > three A records, and then the DNS system round-robins the order of > > > them in each response, right? > > > > actually, you can do this with CNAME's even: > > test IN CNAME boron > > IN CNAME argon > > IN CNAME hydrogen > > No! It isn't "legal", and BIND 8.x won't accept it. > > > hydrogen,ttyqh,~,514#host test > > test.nike.efn.org is a nickname for hydrogen.nike.efn.org > > hydrogen,ttyqh,~,515#host test > > test.nike.efn.org is a nickname for boron.nike.efn.org > > hydrogen,ttyqh,~,516#host test > > test.nike.efn.org is a nickname for argon.nike.efn.org > > > > so: > > cvsup IN CNAME cvsup1 > > IN CNAME cvsup2 > > IN CNAME cvsup3 > > It works with BIND 4.x, but ... > > /Jesper > > -- > Jesper Skriver (JS249-RIPE), Network manager > Tele Danmark Internet (TDI1-RIPE) > > One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them, > One IP to bring them all and in the zone bind them. >