The RFC or the reason why you can not create CNAME record for t he "root record"

[Kevin Darcy]

phil-news-nospam at ipal.net wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 08:09:35 -0400 David Botham <DBotham at optimussolutions.com> wrote:
>
>|> So how do we fix this?  I think a hack/patch is the only way.  But I see
>|> two different ways to approach that.  Which one is likely to work in 
>| most
>|> cases?
>| 
>| "This" is not broken and therefore cannot be fixed.  Change your mind 
>| instead.
>
>Maybe we should just take CNAME out of the RFC altogether.  I frequently
>see many recommendations to NOT use it.  And the one place where it would
>be useful, it doesn't work 
>
It's useful for giving a single A record multiple names, without having 
to maintain multiple A records or introducing any reverse-lookup 
ambiguity. "mail", "news", "ftp", "www" (for example) can all resolve to 
the same address via CNAMEs, and if the address changes, you have only 1 
record to change. This is the fundamental reason why CNAMEs were 
created, and the most common way they are used. It's still not clear to 
me how you are trying to use CNAMEs, but certainly there is more than 
"one place" that they are useful, and my impression is you're trying to 
hammer a square peg into a round hole...

                                                                         
                                                - Kevin