On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:58:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102081346001.16513-100000@innerfire.net>
> By author: Gerhard Mack <gmack@innerfire.net>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > Thanklfully bind 9 barfs if you even try this sort of thing.
> >
> Personally I find it puzzling what's wrong with MX -> CNAME at all; it
> seems like a useful setup without the pitfalls that either NS -> CNAME
> or CNAME -> CNAME can cause (NS -> CNAME can trivially result in
> irreducible situations; CNAME -> CNAME would require a link maximum
> count which could result in obscure breakage.)
It generally forces another DNS lookup. If you do a resolve on
a name of type=ANY it returns any MX records and A records. If you then
do a resolve on the MX records, you then get a CNAME and then have to
add an additional lookup for the CNAME. If you have a lot of MX records
and not all the servers are "up" that can add up to a significant
increase in DNS traffic.
> -hpa
> --
> <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
> "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
> http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
Mike
-- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@WittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 21:00:13 EST