On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 12:25:03PM +0200, Marco Moock wrote: ! Am 28.05.2024 um 12:00:09 Uhr schrieb Peter: ! ! > if I understand corrently, the use of CNAME is just a convenience ! > and no technical feature, right? ! ! It is technical because the query is redirected to the domain listed in ! the CNAME.
Seen that way, yes. Not using CNAME would then even be a load reducing improvement. ! > Often, the webserver and other applications are not actually ! > running on node 1.2.3.4, but are internally portforwarded to ! > some other node, for various reasons. ! ! This is bad IPv4 stuff, you should get rid off that ASAP. Yes, that's the official stance... ! > Now we add an IPv6 address for 'myhost'. But portforwarding ! > doesn't work for IPv6. Instead we are required to use different ! > addresses all over, like so: ! ! port forwarding would work, but is nasty here. Redirectors like rinetd ! can handle that, but I recommend against in this case. I tried it, and didn't get around the Path MTU discovery: Forward SNMP to one host, HTTP to another - which one then gets the ICMPv6 2.0 "message too big"? ! > So, how would you do it? Is there a nice and elegant way? ! ! www CNAME webserver1 ! ftp CNAME ftp2 ! ! webserver1 A 192.168.0.1 ! webserver1 AAAA 2001:db8::1 ! ftp2 A 172.16.0.1 ! ftp2 AAAA 2001:db8:9999::1 ! ! That makes it possible to redirect it to the actual machines that runs ! the service. Okay, looks good. Lets go that way. Thanks for Your reply! PMc -- Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
