cname quick question

Erik Aronesty erik at
Wed Mar 7 04:40:18 UTC 2001

As I've been trying to point out for many, many weeks now - despide being
trashed by the "nominum" crowd.

If CNAMEs are at the root of a zone, care *must be taken* to ensure that the
NS records at the root of a zone that contains a CNAME must match, exactly,
the NS records for the "parent".  IE: you can not use NS records for
"delegation" in a zone where there is a CNAME at the root, only for
"authority" or "glue".  This prevents the potential for ambiguity that such
a zone can cause - and will work with the current resolver algorithm.

        - Erik

----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Mayer" <mayer at>
To: "glen herrmannsfeldt" <gah at>;
<comp-protocols-dns-bind at>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: cname quick question

> At 06:21 PM 3/6/01, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> >Jim Reid <jim at> writes:
> >
> >(snip)
> >
> > >Like Tal Dayan, you are being obtuse or deliberately provocative.
> > >Please *read* the extract from RFC1034 above. Now *think* about what
> > >it says and what that means. Pay particular attention to the last
> > >sentence. Hint: suppose was a CNAME pointing at
> > > That CNAME is cached by some name server. It can
> > >safely use that cached CNAME without having to query the
> > >name servers to check that no other record types exist for
> > >
> >
> >It would seem that the problem is political and not technical.
>          No, the problem IS technical.  A large number of problems are now
> up where people are getting transfer errors when trying to update the
slave servers.
>          Danny

More information about the bind-users mailing list