cname quick question
cricket at VeriSign.com
Wed Mar 7 19:01:43 UTC 2001
> In regard to the question about CNAME at the top of the zone.
> I seem to have come in this discussion late, and now it seems I
> am being misunderstood. Is there any reason why a CNAME on
> the root nameserver, in place of delegating the domain with NS,
> would not work?
Well, it would probably be in the com zone, not in the root zone,
but sure, that would work.
> There would be no other record, no NS, no SOA, for the name.
Right. In fact, you could have both:
example.com. IN CNAME target.com.
www.example.com. IN CNAME www.target.com.
in the com zone.
> A large fraction of the names out there now probably don't have
> any other names in the domain. Well, a CNAME for www. might
> be nice, also.
> Note that every movie that comes out of the big movie companies has
> a www.moviename.com domain for it. I would be really surprised if
> there were other hosts in such domains. It would seem so much
> less work to just put the darn CNAME in, instead of delegate a
> domain with only one A record in it.
I could bring this up as a possible service the Registry could offer.
Are there any technical objections to it that I haven't thought of?
More information about the bind-users