From owner-freebsd-questions  Fri Sep 29  6:55:24 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from ns.shawneelink.net (ns.shawneelink.net [216.240.66.11])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 455A737B422; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 06:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns.shawneelink.net (ns.shawneelink.net [216.240.66.11])
	by ns.shawneelink.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8TDspL09667;
	Fri, 29 Sep 2000 08:54:51 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 08:54:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: J Bacher <jb@jbacher.com>
X-Sender: jb@ns.shawneelink.net
To: Jim Weeks <jim@siteplus.net>
Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: RE: DNS: having domain1.com and domain1.net point to the same IP.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009290820270.272-100000@veager.siteplus.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0009290852460.8156-100000@ns.shawneelink.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Andy Wolf wrote:
>  
> > We use two A records now and therefor accept redundancy. The reverse lookup
> > of course can only point to one of the labels.
> 
> The general consensus throughout the industry seems to be that C names are
> evil.
> 
> I have never been bitten by just using A names.


The efficiency of the CNAME record is that is eliminates oversight when
re-IPing a network, subnetwork or group of servers.




To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message