A record of domain name must be name server ?
kcd at chrysler.com
Wed Sep 10 21:13:59 UTC 2014
On 9/10/2014 11:58 AM, Alan Clegg wrote:
> On 9/10/14, 8:42 AM, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> And you could reduce maintenance very slightly by replacing
>> www in A 220.127.116.11
>> www in CNAME @
> And now you have an MX record, 3 NS records and a bunch of other crap
> associated with the WWW address.
And why is that a _bad_ thing?
If I ever change that IP, I want to change it in *one*place*. The CNAME
allows everything to automatically follow that change. Why necessitate
multiple updates when a single update will do? If TTL-manipulation is
necessary in order to minimize caching complications, the number of
RRset updates is magnified, of course.
MXes and NSes are a non-issue, IMO, since the contexts in which people
look up a "www" name (usually end-users trying to access a website) are
usually quite disjoint from the use cases of MXes (automated systems
delivering mail) or NSes (nameserver-to-nameserver traffic). I see
little or no risk of confusion or misdirection.
I suppose it's _possible_ that some day a mail sender might mistype a
recipient as user at www.example.com instead of (as they should have)
user at example.com, and maybe in that scenario the CNAME will cause the
recipient address to show up in the headers of the received message in
an unexpected way. But, to me, this falls under the generic category of
GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) -- you type something wrong into a
computer system, you might not get the results you expected...
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bind-users