G
Guest
Hi All,
My company recently upgraded our DNS servers from BIND to Windows 2003.
The upgrade went flawlessly, however since doing so we are have trouble
resolving certain names at other sites. Specifically, addresses created
using multiple cnames do not resolve at all - instead they failed with a
'server failed' message. A publicly accessible name that fails to resolve
is hats.princeton.edu.
Just for clarification, here is an example of what I mean by multiple CNAMES:
host.domain.com CNAME host1.domain.com
host.domain.com CNAME host2.domain.com
host1.domain.com A 1.2.3.4
host2.domain.com A 1.2.3.5
I know multiple cnames are against RFC's and only really supported in older
versions of BIND. However, is there anything I can do on my DNS servers to
enable resolution of the names?
I was able to add forwarders for hats.princeton.edu and the other 'broken'
names using multiple CNAMES to forward the requests to the name servers
responsible for that domain (I looked up the NS records). However, this
seems like a big hack and I'd like to find a better solution.
Thanks,
-Dan
My company recently upgraded our DNS servers from BIND to Windows 2003.
The upgrade went flawlessly, however since doing so we are have trouble
resolving certain names at other sites. Specifically, addresses created
using multiple cnames do not resolve at all - instead they failed with a
'server failed' message. A publicly accessible name that fails to resolve
is hats.princeton.edu.
Just for clarification, here is an example of what I mean by multiple CNAMES:
host.domain.com CNAME host1.domain.com
host.domain.com CNAME host2.domain.com
host1.domain.com A 1.2.3.4
host2.domain.com A 1.2.3.5
I know multiple cnames are against RFC's and only really supported in older
versions of BIND. However, is there anything I can do on my DNS servers to
enable resolution of the names?
I was able to add forwarders for hats.princeton.edu and the other 'broken'
names using multiple CNAMES to forward the requests to the name servers
responsible for that domain (I looked up the NS records). However, this
seems like a big hack and I'd like to find a better solution.
Thanks,
-Dan