Machine friendly alternative to nsupdate

Shumon Huque shuque at
Wed Apr 1 15:26:29 UTC 2020

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:36 AM Tony Finch <dot at> wrote:

> This error behaviour is mostly specified by the UPDATE protocol (RFC
> 2136). It's worth reading the RFC becasue (as you have found) some of the
> behaviour is a bit surprising. For instance, adding a record that already
> exists is not an error because multiple copies of the same record
> traditionally get silently de-duplicated in the DNS. (I can't explain the
> lack of error in the CNAME case...)

This was a bit unexpected for me too, until I saw that RFC2136 does
cover the CNAME case. From Section (the "vice versa" covers the
original poster's case):

   "In the case of a CNAME
   Update RR and a non-CNAME Zone RRset or vice versa, ignore the CNAME
   Update RR, otherwise replace the CNAME Zone RR with the CNAME Update

The implication is that "ignore" also means set the response code to
Although, I suppose CNAME related UPDATE processing could have been
special cased to return an error code like YXRRSET (even without a specified
prerequisite clause).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the bind-users mailing list