isplist at adam.com.au
Wed May 7 10:19:08 CST 2003
Mike Gratton wrote:
> Hmm, that's interesting. I've always been under the impression that
> CNAMEs usualy suck, if you try to use them for an NS or MX record, for
> example. So I've always favoured mutltiple A records instead of CNAMEs.
> Apart for the high-maintenance factor when you need to change all of
> the A recods pointing to an address, when else can doing this suck?
CNAME's also require 2 DNS lookups rather than one to resolve, which can
be a noticeable difference on laggy links or busy DNS servers if you
obsess over speed. Also, you technically shouldn't CNAME a CNAME, so
using an alias may prevent someone else from aliasing your site (which
might be a good thing in some scenarios, but possibly not if you're
using dynamic DNS).
You also can't use a CNAME for the @ record in a domain which is
annoying if you want all domains to point to a single web server for
example, and I think that you can't use multiple CNAME's for round-robin
I too am curious about scenarios where multiple A records suck, I tend
to limit my use of CNAME's to aliasing hostnames that might change IP
without me knowing about it.
LinuxSA WWW: http://www.linuxsa.org.au/ IRC: #linuxsa on irc.freenode.net
To unsubscribe from the LinuxSA list:
mail linuxsa-request at linuxsa.org.au with "unsubscribe" as the subject
More information about the linuxsa