Is there a limit on the number of IP addresses to a name?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <3911BD0E.9A138A86 at kodak.com>,
Susan Casserino  <susan.casserino at kodak.com> wrote:
>A problem was reported to me that lead me to an interesting question.  
>Is there a limit to how many IP addresses can be assigned to one name?  
>
>I found 3 different nslookup/resolver scenarios with our UNIX systems 
>and resolvers.  They are all running Solaris, but are at different 
>patch levels.
>
>Our forwarders and external DNS servers are successful with both 
>nslookup & resolving.  They are running Quadritek QDDNS 4.9.7
>and QIP DDNS Server (BIND 8.1.2) respectively.
>
>Our internal DNS servers fail on both nslookup & resolving.  They are
>running QIP DDNS Server (BIND 8.1.2).
>
>An internal desktop using the internal DNS servers can resolve, but
>not do a nslookup.
>
>The name I'm looking at is kodak.photonet.com, it has 34 IP's.  I used
>http://www.demon.net/external/ntools.shtml to examine the data of 
>the specific host and that will give you "???" on the 31st entry.
>I don't know why there would be a need to use so many addresses, but 
>regardless of why, it raised a valid question.

If a UDP DNS reply gets larger than about 500 bytes, it is truncated.  The
client is supposed to retry the query using TCP instead of UDP.  However,
BIND 4 doesn't support performing recursive queries using TCP, so you'll
won't be able to do this through your forwarder until you upgrade it to
BIND 8.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.