On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Dave Sherohman wrote: > > RFC says (somewhere, don't remember which one) forward and reverse have > > to match, so having the following would be invalid: > > Learn something new every day. But... > > IIRC, NS and MX records aren't supposed to point to CNAMEs, only to As. > So wouldn't using only one A per IP make things a lot messier if you > switch from hosting mail and DNS on the same machine to separate boxes > or vice-versa? That is true. That's what I use ip aliases for DNS and MX servers. :) > Also, the DNS-HOWTO (my admittedly near-sole source of information on > the topic) includes a note that "A number of the arch-bind-wizards, > recommend not using CNAME at all. But the discussion of why or why not > is beyond this HOWTO." Do these arch-bind-wizards choose to ignore the > RFC you're referring to or have they come up with some way of reconciling > the two approaches? When I saw that comment, I stopped using CNAME's for a long time.. but I was convinced otherwise and had the RFC thrown in my face later on. Not sure why they said that.. > > This also makes it a helluva lot easier if we ever switch the IP of our > > web server. > > If you want to look at it that way, sure... It's the flip side of my earlier > comment about CNAMEs outside the zone being more fragile. The extra level of > indirection makes moving the web server easier, but it also makes the > referring zone vulnerable to loss of access to the zone containing the A > record. True. -- Nate Carlson <natecars at real-time.com> | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500