Multiple CNAMEs and Bind 9

Simon Waters Simon at wretched.demon.co.uk
Tue Nov 19 00:53:50 UTC 2002



Michael Reynolds wrote:
> 
> I've seen all these pages and posts and emails about Multiple CNAMEs
> being against RFCs.  Could someone point me to the RFC(s) that the
> CNAMEs violate, and if possible the line(s) which point that out.

RFC1034

If a CNAME RR is present at a node, no other data should be
present....

> is there any other way to do the weighting?

BIND 9 does random starting records with same ordering by
default, and I don't think there is an easy DNS based way within
BIND 9 to achieve the same effect.

Load balancing has been discussed extensively in the archive,
with lots of different ideas, although a lot depends what you
are trying to do. Dynamic DNS offers the option to remove
overworked or dead servers.




More information about the bind-users mailing list