CNAME used in Global Server Loadbalancing - is it RFC compliant ?

[support at gday.ch]

Hello,

we are using Global Server Loadbalancing (GSLB) for site redundancy.

GSLB is based on DNS technology and works as follows

-------------------------------
 standard implementation case
-------------------------------

www.example.com.    NS   loadbalancer-1.example.com.
#                                               --> ( LB located at site-a)

www.example.com.    NS   loadbalancer-2.example.com.
#                                               --> ( LB located at site-b)


#  the loadbalancer (LB) resolves the DNS query for www.example.com, based
#  on load balancing criteria with a site specific public IP address

loadbalancer-1.example.com.     A   1.y.z.w
loadbalancer-2.example.com.     A   2.y.z.w



-------------------------------
 ?? 'CNAME approach' in question
-------------------------------

(-) Above setup works fine and for each service and we need 2 public IP
addresses ­ one at each site hosted on the loadbalancer device.

(--) now considering that we host the same application with different names
on the same server ­ we need for each one another 2 public IP addresses -
this leads to an unnecessary waste of addresses (x * 2)

==> NEW APPROACH 

Instead of using two new IP public addresses for the new service name I
defined following:

new-www.example.com  CNAME www.example.com.

==> it works fine so far an the resolve process is as it should be, but



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is it legitimate (RFC compliant) to use CNAME in this setup or is is just
luck that it works and more compliant resolvers won't work properly ??
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks a lot
Marcel