Search Again: Re: c name From: Men & Mice Support Date: Thursday, May 27, 1999 Time: 11:47:00 pm >is there any compelling reason not to have multiple A records instead of >Cname? No. >domain.com A xxx.xx.xx.001 >www.domain.com A xxx.xx.xx.001 > >vs > >domain.com A xxx.xx.xx.001 >www.domain.com Cname domain.com > >will they both work? will the dual A way resolve faster? In any situation where the CNAME will work, the A will also work. Furthermore, there are some situations where an A record will work but a CNAME record won't. For example, this won't work: domain.com. NS ns1.domain.com. ns1.domain.com. CNAME otherhost.domain.com. NS and MX records must never resolve to a name that has a CNAME record instead of an A record. A CNAME can resolve to another CNAME, but this is not recommended practice. Of course, the following is illegal under any circumstances: domain.com. CNAME host.domain.com. A domain name that has subdomains (i.e. individual hosts) must never have a CNAME. In other words, because www.apple.com exists, apple.com must not resolve to a CNAME record. Another thing to watch out for is this combination of records (taken from multiple zone files, of course): host.domain.com. A 192.168.0.1 www.domain.com. CNAME host.domain.com. 1.0.168.192.in-addr.arpa. PTR www.domain.com. The preceding example isn't exactly illegal (AFAIK), but it is at least highly suspect and can cause problems. In answer to your last question, the multiple A record method will resolve slightly faster than the CNAME record method. ____________________________________________________________________ Chris Buxton Men & Mice cbuxton@menandmice.com http://www.menandmice.com

Messages In This Thread: c name by Aaron Lynch on May 27, 1999 at 10:18:00 am Re: c name by Men & Mice Support on May 27, 1999 at 11:47:00 pm Re: c name by Salvatore Toribio on May 28, 1999 at 8:47:00 pm Re: c name by Men & Mice Support on May 29, 1999 at 3:21:00 am