Hello

Canonical names allows mapping more than one name to one ip address ie.: this ip
address named such can also be known as such and such but the primary name is
unique.    Although using CNAMES  you can assign a hostname as a A record for
one IP address but a CNAME for many others but never as an A record for more
than one IP address.   What's happening here is the mapping of more than one ip
address to one name.   The way NT works is that you name the box hence each NIC
winds up with the same hostname not each with it's primary name and the
alternate name as a CNAME as would be the case with canonical names, this all
gets fed to the Active Directory server somehow (probably WINS) and Active
Directory pretending to be a DNS server pushes out multiple A records for the
hostname.   NT boxes round robins on the multiple matches, almost everyone else
either uses the first match resolved or the last match resolved.   The problem I
had was one server was resolving via DNS and using the last one resolved, the
other server was using local hosts table because it's DNS server was hosed and
was using the first match.

I guess multiple ip addresses for a given hostname is not strictly prohibited,
it's just that most people have the sense to avoid the extra confusion but not
Microsoft.

Regardless, the issue is that if both servers use different addresses, I get a
status 58.   I'd imagine that I would be fine if both servers resolved the names
the same way but they have one resolving versus one DNS server and the other
versus another.

Regards,
John I Wang
Sr. Systems Engineer
Steverson Information Professionals

---
Enron Networks
Enron Building room 3427e
ph (713) 345-4888
cell (832) 493-1263
fax (713) 646-8462
pg pagejwang AT skytel DOT com or 1-877-390-4155





|--------+----------------------->
|        |          kingjamm@coll|
|        |          tech.com     |
|        |                       |
|        |          09/06/01     |
|        |          03:29 PM     |
|        |                       |
|--------+----------------------->
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                           |
  |       To:     John Wang/Contractor/Enron Communications@Enron             |
  |       Communications                                                      |
  |       cc:     veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu                      
     |
  |       Subject:     Re: [Veritas-bu] Interesting name resolution issue     |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------|



> You see, the client is a Windows NT box with two gigabit interfaces, different
> IP addresses on the same subnet but the same hostname for both addresses.

Is that canonical or short names? I'm not familiar with NT, but <yuck!> if
you CAN do it with canonical names :(







**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and 
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the 
intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others 
is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to 
receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. 
at enron.messaging.administration AT enron DOT com and delete all copies of the 
message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be an 
offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and 
enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the 
intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by anyone as 
the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you. 
**********************************************************************