From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Jun 6 8:22:27 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail2.wmptl.com (mail2.wmptl.com [216.221.73.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E7737B865 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 08:22:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from webmaster@wmptl.com) Received: from wmptl.com ([10.0.0.168]) by mail2.wmptl.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA49452; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:31:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from webmaster@wmptl.com) Message-ID: <393D16E4.D2E76C9A@wmptl.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 11:21:08 -0400 From: Nathan Vidican Reply-To: webmaster@wmptl.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Conner Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IP vs CNAME References: <4.3.1.2.20000604022838.0195f9b8@mail.enterit.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jim Conner wrote: > > At 11:11 PM 6/3/00 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > >Troy Settle wrote: > > > > > Oh man... you like to pick nits. > > > > The problem is, DNS is just that way. If you don't get it exactly > > right, > >it won't work. > > > > > I didn't think I'd have to go quite so > > > far as to bore everyone with an SOA record. But since you insist: > > > > > > @ IN SOA ns1.isp.net. hostmaster.isp.net. ( > > > 2000060401 10800 3600 3600000 86400 ) > > > IN MX 10 mailhost.isp.net. > > > IN MX 20 spooler.isp.net. > > > IN NS ns1.isp.net. > > > IN NS ns2.isp.net. > > > @ IN CNAME webhost.isp.net. > > > www IN CNAME webhost.isp.net. > > > mail IN CNAME mailhost.isp.net. > > > > > > Happy now? > > He's right. This zone file as-is won't work. You have no A names > here!! Also, it appears you are using version 4.x syntax. This zone file > would never do for a current version of bind. > > You have the origin specified to point to webhost.isp.net. Unless you have > an A record somewhere in another zone this will not work. > > -Jim > > > Nope. That won't work either. I reiterate: > > > > > ** you can't combine > > > ** CNAME RR's and other RR's for the same host. > > > > Try actually loading up a zone file that looks like that and > > you'll see > >what I mean. > > > > > Actually, I don't use CNAMEs that often, and never realized this. > > > > So why are we having this conversation? You obviously don't > > understand > >what I'm talking about, and you don't have enough background to be > >disagreeing with me. I'm not trying to be rude, but I hate seeing people > >give bad advice on a public list. Innocent users might be misled. > > > > > >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 This message has gone a little off-topic, but since there's been so many replies/(arguments), I've posted what my decision was. I decided to stick with using CNAME's. Mainly for the purpose of ease of administration. The zonefile as posted above is in fact similar to that which I am actually using, and it does work. (No I'm not using Bind 4.x either) It just depends on an A record for the CNAME to point to; who said the CNAME has to point to a domain controlled by the same DNS server? In my case, the configuration is as follows, just in case anyone would care to see what I chose to do. Every new site is using name-based hosting to one of several webservers. Each 'pool' of virtual-hosts, (by pool I mean those using the same webserver), has exactly the same DNS zonefile, my newaccount scripts actually copy an existing one over. The zonefile looks like this: @ IN SOA ns.mydomain.net. hostmaster.mydomain.net. ( 2000050902 10800 3600 8432000 38400 ) IN NS ns.mydomain.net. IN NS ns2.mydomain.net. IN MX 100 mail.mydomain.net. IN MX 200 mail2.mydomain.net. mail IN CNAME mail.mydomain.net. www IN CNAME web001.mydomain.net. The zone definition like this: zone "whatever.com" { type master; file "zones/whatever.com.hosts"; }; And apache's virtualhost on web001.govital.net, contains the line: NameVirtualHost xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:80 DocumentRoot "/some-dir" One of the primary reasons this works out for us, is that we can change a single record per webserver, and not have to change the corrosponding 100s of domains to match. I understand that using a CNAME means two DNS lookups whereas using an A records needs one; but what if web001.mydomain.net needed to be changed? It would be quick and easy with a CNAME-based setup, but a big change-over if I were using A-records. As fate would have it, we are planning on changing our upstream provider, (which also means changing our IP blocks). We have a one month overlap wherein we'll have service from both providers so we can transfer the servers one-by one. In short, I guess my origional question would have been asked better if I said "Would it make any difference to someone viewing www.whatever.com, if it were hosted by name, or by IP address?" Thanks for the help, and I appreciated all the feedback, but I think I'm just going to continue as I am. -- Nathan Vidican webmaster@wmptl.com Windsor Match Plate & Tool Ltd. http://www.wmptl.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message