last i heard from you, you said that DNAME would be evaluated by recursive resolver and will not be visible to end client... what changed?
according to this experiment:
+--- | ;; QUESTION SECTION: | 3.7.a.1.5.0.e.f.f.f.b.5.9.0.2.0.b.b.0.0.3.0.0.0.8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.int. \ | IN PTR | | ;; ANSWER SECTION: | 8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.int. 7200 IN DNAME 8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. | 3.7.a.1.5.0.e.f.f.f.b.5.9.0.2.0.b.b.0.0.3.0.0.0.8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.int. \ | 0 IN CNAME \ | 3.7.a.1.5.0.e.f.f.f.b.5.9.0.2.0.b.b.0.0.3.0.0.0.8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. | 3.7.a.1.5.0.e.f.f.f.b.5.9.0.2.0.b.b.0.0.3.0.0.0.8.f.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. \ | 7200 IN PTR sa.vix.com. +---
...there is a DNAME provided, which most resolvers will just ignore, and there is a synthesized (TTL=0) CNAME provided. the main purpose of the DNAME is to tell the authority server to synthesize these CNAMEs.
i understand some implementation (BIND 9.3?) does this, but is the behavior documented somewhere in the set of RFCs? for instance, does djbdns do it? does MS DNS server do it? i'm very skeptical about the possibility (or reality) of DNAME-based transition. itojun