On 06/19/2017 10:27 AM, Mark Elkins wrote:
Another solution could be to make one of the names a CNAME pointing to the other name. -or- Just use one generic name for both services. rather than the two "service" names. Although in all honesty, I see nothing wrong with a lookup returning two answers (in a single response packet) for the one reverse query. BIND certainly is not confused. I guess it confuses people? I've written various scripts to do various DNS checks and have always made (programmed for) this assumption - that there may be more than one answer and there may also be CNAMEs involved. If other software is confused - then perhaps it is badly written? Some people do though, I believe, go overboard... (dig -x 41.185.8.21)
Thank you, in this case cname cannot be used, as IPV6 are different. So, the point is does bind returns the 2 names in the same packet ? _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
