[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: DNS goofups galore...
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:58:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <>
> By author: Gerhard Mack <>
> In newsgroup:
> >
> > 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.

> -hpa
> --
> <> at work, <> in private!
> "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."

Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 |
(The Mad Wizard) | (678) 463-0932 |
NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.217 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site