jonathan at bluesunhosting.com
Fri Jul 27 13:44:09 MDT 2007
On 27 Jul 2007, at 10:43, Andrew McNabb wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 12:35:58AM -0600, Michael L Torrie wrote:
>> CNAME's are kind of funny aren't they. Most of us probably think
>> of the
>> term (colloquially), "Canonical Name," as being exactly the
>> reverse of
>> what a CNAME is. At least to me.
> I think we just mix things up when we talk about it. Suppose we have
> the following:
> athena IN A 192.168.1.1
> www IN CNAME athena
> We imprecisely say stuff like "www is a CNAME for athena." If we
> about the two lines together, though, we will say "192.168.1.1 is the
> address for athena, and athena is the CNAME for www." So www is the
> alias, and athena is the canonical name.
> If we were more careful, we probably wouldn't get confused.
To quote DJB:
Don't use [CNAME] if there are any other records for [the fully
qualified domain name]. Don't use [CNAME] for common aliases; use
[the fully qualified domain name] instead. Remember the wise words of
Inigo Montoya: ``You keep using CNAME records. I do not think they
mean what you think they mean.'' (http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/tinydns-
The above record would be written like this in TinyDNS:
Not to start a war, but doesn't that look much easier?
More information about the PLUG