8.2 and multiple-cnames/rrset-order support
Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Wed Jun 9 22:05:56 UTC 1999
From the 8.2.1 change log.
626. [bug] multiple CNAME support was broken.
8.2.1 is in public BETA ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind/src/testing/t4b/
Mark
> Has multiple-cname support changed between 8.1.x and 8.2? I noticed
> some strange errors on a sun workstation after upgrading our name
> servers to 8.2 and then realized that our CNAME-based round robins were
> no longer functioning the way they used to. On Solaris, the problem
> evidences itself as follows:
>
> Jun 4 08:34:49 dogbert nscd[224]: gethostby*.getanswer: asked for
> l4dnfp4-160169.domain.com", got "l4dnfp4-160168.domain.com"
>
> Looking at our DNS table dump, I see:
>
> $ORIGIN 168.160.10.in-addr.arpa.
> 7 604800 IN PTR l4dnfp4-160168.domain.com. ;Cl=3
>
> $ORIGIN 169.160.10.in-addr.arpa.
> 13 604800 IN PTR l4dnfp4-160169.domain.com. ;Cl=3
>
> l4dnfp4 604800 IN CNAME l4dnfp4-160168.hewitt.com. ;Cl=2
> 604800 IN CNAME l4dnfp4-160169.hewitt.com. ;Cl=2
>
> Our options in /etc/named.conf are set to:
>
> options {
> directory "/usr/local/named";
> named-xfer "/apps/bind/current/bin/named-xfer";
> multiple-cnames yes;
> pid-file "/etc/named.pid";
> use-id-pool yes;
> rrset-order { order cyclic ; };
> };
>
> Doing a little further digging (pun, no-pun, whatever :-), I verified that
> the same A record was returned regardless of the first CNAME:
>
> QUESTIONS:
> l4dnfp4.domain.com, type = A, class = IN
> ANSWERS:
> -> l4dnfp4.domain.com
> canonical name = l4dnfp4-160169.domain.com
> ttl = 604800 (7 days)
> -> l4dnfp4.hewitt.com
> canonical name = l4dnfp4-160168.domain.com
> ttl = 604800 (7 days)
> -> l4dnfp4-160168.domain.com
> internet address = 10.160.168.7
> ttl = 604800 (7 days)
>
> Is this the (new) expected behavior under 8.2? I was basing my
> expectations on the doc, which states:
>
> multiple-cnames
> If yes, then multiple CNAME resource records will be allowed for a
> domain name. The default is no. Allowing multiple CNAME records is
> against standards and is not recommended. Multiple CNAME support is
> available because previous versions of BIND allowed multiple CNAME
> records, and these records have been used for load balancing by a
> number of sites.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Erick.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/
>
>
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
More information about the bind-users
mailing list