No, there's no problem CNAME'ing from one zone to another. I do that all
of the time.

There *is* a problem, however, in setting "$ORIGIN ." followed by an "@"
entry. Because of the preceding $ORIGIN, named's parser interprets the
"@" as a root-zone entry. In your logs, you should have had another
error message specifying exactly the line on which the fatal error
occurred. Why did you omit that error message?

- Kevin

John wrote:

>could this be why? im trying to cname it to another domain?
>
>
>
>$ORIGIN .
>$TTL 604800 ; 7 days
>@ IN SOA localhost. info.localhost. (
> 34 ;
> 86400 ;
> 900 ;
> 604800 ;
> 86400 ;
> ) ;
> NS localhost. ;
> MX 10 mail ;
>
>
>* A 192.168.1.2
>foo.com. CNAME foo.dnsalias.com.
>
>
>although it seemed to resolve..i just get this nasty error in my log
>
> [ID 295310 daemon.error] master zone "foo.com" (IN) rejected due to
>errors (serial 34)
>
>
>
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:48:57 -0500, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>well.i do want to resolve .foo.com as well..thats why i
>>>had the wildcard there..
>>>
>>>but like you said..the
>>>
>>>foo.com. in a 192.168.1.2
>>>
>>>line should resolve foo.com right?
>>>
>>>how come its not?
>>>
>>>as of now i can resolve blah.foo.com, but not foo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>Are you sure you removed the correct line? We have A records at the apex
>>of zones all over the place. See, for example, axlealliance.com.
>>blah.foo.com, on the other hand, shouldn't resolve unless there's an
>>explicit record for it, or a wildcard entry.
>>
>>Perhaps it would be useful for you to post your zone file.
>>
>>- Kevin
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:23:36 -0500, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>John wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm trying to figure out what would be the correct entry in the db
>>>>>file so i can resolve a top domain..
>>>>>
>>>>>ie..i want to resolve
>>>>>
>>>>>foo.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>what would i need to have in the file?
>>>>>
>>>>>i tried.
>>>>>
>>>>>* in a 192.168.1.2
>>>>>foo.com. in a 192.168.1.2
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>and that didnt seem to work for foo.com...it works to resolve
>>>>>.foo.com
>>>>>
>>>>>but what's the line i need to resolve foo.com itself?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>The second line by itself should have been sufficient. One would only
>>>>have the first line if one wanted the wildcarding behavior.
>>>>
>>>>- Kevin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>