[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, Michael H. Warfield <> wrote:
> But, wait a minute. CNAME -> CNAME is a "must not". MX -> CNAME
> is a "should not". The "should not" leaves it to be implimentation
> dependent and not an outright ban. Sooo...

Actually, I had this conversation recently. I checked a variety of
places and I couldn't find an RFC that said CNAME -> CNAME is a "must
not". In fact I found this snippet in rfc1912 which seems to imply that
it is legal:

Also, having chained records such as CNAMEs pointing to CNAMEs may
make administration issues easier, but is known to tickle bugs in
some resolvers that fail to check loops correctly. As a result some
hosts may not be able to resolve such names.



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:0.212 / U:0.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site