Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:25:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Weeks <jim@siteplus.net> To: John Turner <john@drexeltech.com> Cc: Andy Wolf <Andy.Wolf@nextra.de>, James Wyatt <jwyatt@rwsystems.net>, Jan Knepper <jan@digitaldaemon.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: DNS: having domain1.com and domain1.net point to the same IP. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009290915360.416-100000@veager.siteplus.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000929090943.00b07008@mail.johnturner.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, John Turner wrote: > At 08:24 AM 9/29/2000 -0400, Jim Weeks wrote: > > >The general consensus throughout the industry seems to be that C names are > >evil. > > I've never heard this. CNAME records have a very specific use, when used > that way they work great. CNAME records are for roles, not hosts. If I > had to use A records for all of my DNS records, it would take hours of > management per week. Once I have A records in place, I use CNAMEs, this > makes changes very easy. > > > >I have never been bitten by just using A names. > > True, to a point. Get hundreds of A records, and you'll get bit by not > having enough time in the day to keep everything straight. I'm not sure I understand how adding an A record is any more time consuming than adding a C record. How are they harder to keep strait? I may be doing unnecessary work. Jim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0009290915360.416-100000>