Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 08 Feb 2001 15:47:17 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: DNS goofups galore... |
| |
"Michael H. Warfield" wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:58:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Followup to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102081346001.16513-100000@innerfire.net> > > By author: Gerhard Mack <gmack@innerfire.net> > > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > > > Thanklfully bind 9 barfs if you even try this sort of thing. > > > > > > Personally I find it puzzling what's wrong with MX -> CNAME at all; it > > seems like a useful setup without the pitfalls that either NS -> CNAME > > or CNAME -> CNAME can cause (NS -> CNAME can trivially result in > > irreducible situations; CNAME -> CNAME would require a link maximum > > count which could result in obscure breakage.) > > It generally forces another DNS lookup. If you do a resolve on > a name of type=ANY it returns any MX records and A records. If you then > do a resolve on the MX records, you then get a CNAME and then have to > add an additional lookup for the CNAME. If you have a lot of MX records > and not all the servers are "up" that can add up to a significant > increase in DNS traffic. >
Wouldn't that be true for any CNAME anyway?
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |