Re: DNS goofups galore...

[Johannes Erdfelt]

On Thu, Feb 08, 2001, Michael H. Warfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.

*shrug*

JE

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/