[Gllug] DNS CNAME usage.

[Steve Nelson]

On 3/20/06, Stephen Harker <steve at pauken.co.uk> wrote:
> David Damerell wrote:

> > However CNAME chains are explicitly prohibited and not what Mr Harker
> > is trying to do.
>
> Correct. And all the documentation I've read has pretty much forbidden
> having CNAMEs pointing to CNAMEs at all, let alone 8 deep!

Where have you seen this *forbidden* ?  DNS & BIND, for example, says
the opposite:

"The BIND implementation supports it, and the RFCs don't expressly
forbid it. But, while you can chain CNAME records, is it a wise thing
to do? The RFCs recommend against it, because of the possibility of
creating a CNAME loop, and because it slows resolution. You may be
able to do it in a pinch, but you probably won't find much sympathy on
the Net if something breaks. And all bets are off if a new
(non-BIND-based) name server implementation emerges"

Your OP asked whether there would be a problem.  The answer is yes, if
your chain is too long, which is why I mentioned the BIND nesting
limitation.  If it is expressly forbidden I'll gladly stand corrected,
but I'd be interested to see where in the  RFCs.

S.
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug