RFC requirements for relative CNAME targets?
johnmill at brandeis.edu
Thu Jul 18 23:11:00 UTC 2013
Sorry I wasn't more clear in my original post. Barry hit the nail on
the head: I was curious if the RFCs required BIND to append $ORIGIN to
targets that aren't fully qualified. Sounds like they do.
I appreciate the help!
On 07/18/2013 05:59 PM, Novosielski, Ryan wrote:
> Are you asking if the target of a CNAME need be an FQDN if $ORIGIN is
> defined? If so, no, I use short names (no trailing dot) all the time.
> *From*: John Miller [mailto:johnmill at brandeis.edu]
> *Sent*: Thursday, July 18, 2013 05:49 PM
> *To*: Bind Users Mailing List <bind-users at lists.isc.org>
> *Subject*: Re: RFC requirements for relative CNAME targets?
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Charles Swiger <cswiger at mac.com
> <mailto:cswiger at mac.com>> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 1:18 PM, John Miller <johnmill at brandeis.edu
> <mailto:johnmill at brandeis.edu>> wrote:
> > I know that for the following record in example.com
> <http://example.com>'s zone file:
> > host.example.com <http://host.example.com>. IN CNAME otherhost
> > BIND will return:
> > host.example.com <http://host.example.com>. <TTL> IN CNAME
> otherhost.example.com <http://otherhost.example.com>.
> Assuming $ORIGIN is set to example.com <http://example.com>, but yes.
> > Is this behavior required anywhere in the RFCs, or would
> > host.example.com <http://host.example.com>. <TTL> IN CNAME otherhost.
> > be equally valid from an RFC perspective? Obviously this would
> also pertain to NS, MX, SRV, PTR, etc. records.
> "otherhost." is equally valid from an RFC perspective, or
> "otherhost.other.domain." If there is a trailing dot, the CNAME
> target is assumed to be fully qualified, otherwise $ORIGIN is
> appended just as it would be for any other record using an
> unqualified name.
> I think what I was getting at was whether appending $ORIGIN to an
> unqualified target--only talking target, not label--was _required_ by
> the RFCs, and if so, the RFC/section. I'll read through 'em; was just
> hoping someone knew the answer off the top of their head.
More information about the bind-users