lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.033 / U:0.196 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site