[Unbound-users] What's wrong with CNAMEs in local-data?

Michael Tokarev mjt at tls.msk.ru
Mon Oct 19 09:05:07 UTC 2009

Out of curiocity.

Why unbound can't resolve CNAMEs in local-data
as it does with other CNAMEs?  What is different
between local-data and cached data?

If I were to implement that stuff, I'd, probably,
use the same cache for both "kinds" of RRs, but
for local-data stuff I'd mark them as "permanent".
When constructing answer, take CNAME as if it
were cached normally, and resolve the target name
the usual way.

I don't know how it's implemented in unbound.  Why
the restriction and/or different treatment to start



More information about the Unbound-users mailing list