 |  |
On 01/24/02 at 15:44, Claude Errera wrote:
Re: DOH!
From: Global Homes Webmaster
Date: Thursday, January 24, 2002
Time: 1:05:31 pm
> Recently, Global Homes Webmaster wrote:
>
> >> The problem is... all the domains that are web-served from this box are
> >> CNAME'd to ns1.smallbits.com. Change the record for ns1 to point to a
> >> different address... and all these sites suddenly stop having a home.
> >
> >Aha! You didn't say that before, it does present a smallish fly (a
> >gnat, so to speak) in the proverbial ointment. I'd change the CNAMEs
> >to A records, or at least point the CNAMEs at a different A, which is
> >probably a good idea for other reasons anyway. For one thing, you
> >wouldn't have one service (HTTP) tied to another (DNS) in terms of
> >what computers they're running on. If you've got a lot of CNAMEs to
> >change, it could be a bit of a pain, but I think you'll be better off
> >in the long run. Besides, you control the TTLs for those CNAME and/or
> >A records, so you wouldn't have to wait out your registrar's two day
> >TTL on their glue records. I believe that M&M might have an
> >AppleScript or two that could make the changes easier to carry out.
>
> Well, except for the fact that ftp only works on the primary IP address...
So? Why would you need to use an address other than the box's primary address?
You can have as many A records as you want pointing to the same IP address.
It's allowed by the RFCs and is a very common practice.
> and most clients aren't thrilled about using a generic name ("why can't
> you just set up ftp.mydomain.com?"
domain.com. A xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ;this would be the 'primary' IP
;address for the web server
www.domain.com. CNAME domain.com.
ftp.domain.com. CNAME domain.com.
Or the CNAMEs could just as well be A records pointing the same IP address,
thereby avoiding any of the possible pitfalls inherent in CNAMEs.
> Without FTP, I'd have to come up with a more convoluted way for folks to
> update their sites...
>
> What's done is done - it'll all be changed in a day or so. And having
> both (all three) services tied to the same machine has worked fine for
> the past 2 years... no reason to stop now. :)
Of course, in the final analysis, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 8^) I was
just trying to suggest a solution that might prove to be more flexible down
the road.
> Thanks for the suggestions, though! It's nice to hear friendly people,
> after all the yelling I've been hearing over the past couple of days. :)
No worries! 8^)
Christopher Bort | cbort@globalhomes.com
Webmaster, Global Homes | webmaster@globalhomes.com
<http://www.globalhomes.com/> | PGP public key available on request
Messages In This Thread:
Return to Digital Point Solutions' Home Page