Host Header Site

[Chris Hammer]

In BIND 9 I thought it was illegal to use a CNAME for the main record
(domain1.com) and any subdomains (www.domain1.com).  My BIND does complain
about this.  In BIND 4 this was just overlooked, but once we migrated to 9
it became a problem.

Illegal Example:
                IN        CNAME        www.domain2.com
www        IN        CNAME        www.domain2.com
ftp            IN        CNAME        www.domain2.com

Chris


"Chris" <chris at nospam.datafoundry.com> wrote in message
news:dajq5f$2ovc$1 at sf1.isc.org...
>
> "Brad Knowles" <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org> wrote in message
> news:daisa4$vse$1 at sf1.isc.org...
> > At 2:24 AM -0400 2005-07-07, Vinny Abello wrote:
> >
> >>  It doesn't matter how you setup the record pointing to the web
> >>  server.
> >
> > Actually, it does matter.  The name has to resolve directly to
> > the IP address.  If you use a CNAME record instead, most browsers and
> > proxies will change the name that is being asked for to match the
> > "canonical name" that they've been given.  If you give them an IP
> > address instead, they go ahead and use the original name as provided.
> >
>
> Really? We have hundreds of hosted web sites using a CNAME to the name of
> the hosting server and it's always worked just fine.
>
> I have no doubt that using an A record is preferred but when you have
> hundreds of domains pointing at a server and then you change the IP
address
> of the server only having to change the A record for the CNAME is
preferred
> to having to edit hundreds of zone files.  I've never seen the use of a
> CNAME affect the ability to connect to a web server virtual and there are
> plenty of popular web sites using CNAME's.
>
> Chris.
>
>
>
>