Can an NS point to a CNAME

Phil Mayers p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk
Thu Aug 12 16:07:46 UTC 2010


On 12/08/10 16:34, Yohann Lepage wrote:
> 2010/8/12 Phil Mayers<p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk>:
>> Is this still the case (that NS->CNAME is invalid)?
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2181.txt
>
> 10.3. MX and NS records
>
>     The domain name used as the value of a NS resource record, or part of
>     the value of a MX resource record must not be an alias.  Not only is
>     the specification clear on this point, but using an alias in either
>     of these positions neither works as well as might be hoped, nor well
>     fulfills the ambition that may have led to this approach.  This
>     domain name must have as its value one or more address records.
>     Currently those will be A records, however in the future other record
>     types giving addressing information may be acceptable.  It can also
>     have other RRs, *but never a CNAME RR*.
>
> --
> Yohann
> www.2xyo.info

Thanks, but perhaps I should be more specific about what I'm asking:

Is it still the case that *Bind* will not follow a delegation where an 
NS record points at a CNAME?

In any event, as has been pointed out to me, the zone is broken - I have 
contacted the hostmaster - but I was curious that Bind did not appear to 
be following the delegation *and* did not appear to be logging an error 
(which may be my logging configuration).



More information about the bind-users mailing list