On 12/27/18 1:29 PM, John R Levine wrote:
He thinks $GENERATE confuses people.
No, $GENERATE is not why he, *I*, prefer to use NS over CNAME delegation.I listed out multiple (2 ~ 3) manually as an example instead of using $GENERATE purely to simplify the example. I've run across many people that don't know what $GENERATE is, particularly if their experience comes from somewhere other than BIND.
So, I simply list out the discrete lines that $GENERATE would produce. I think it removes a variable from an equation and simplifies things.
The use of $GENERATE or not is independent of CNAME vs NS delegation. Besides, $GENERATE happily works with CNAME as well as it does NS records. $GENERATE 1-4 $ CNAME $.bob.example.net. $GENERATE 5-8 $ NS ns1.example.com. Both work perfectly fine. named-compilezone produces the expected lines. 1.localhost. 604800 IN CNAME 1.bob.example.net. 2.localhost. 604800 IN CNAME 2.bob.example.net. 3.localhost. 604800 IN CNAME 3.bob.example.net. 4.localhost. 604800 IN CNAME 4.bob.example.net. 5.localhost. 604800 IN NS ns1.example.com. 6.localhost. 604800 IN NS ns1.example.com. 7.localhost. 604800 IN NS ns1.example.com. 8.localhost. 604800 IN NS ns1.example.com.Which of the two methods above is easier (or poses fewer questions) to understand by someone who's not familiar with BIND, much less $GENERATE?
Don't shoot, I'm just the messenger.
I can shoot the messenger with a Nerf gun for reporting the wrong message. Or are we playing a game of telephone?
-- Grant. . . . unix || die
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
