[Dnsmasq-discuss] host-record and cname quirks/questions

Simon Kelley simon at thekelleys.org.uk
Mon Apr 16 16:50:26 BST 2012

On 10/04/12 01:31, Rob Zwissler wrote:
> Hey Simon -
> I'm running 2.61test5 and working with the new host-record directive you
> added, as well as the cname directive, and I noticed some behavior that
> was somewhat counter-intuitive:
> 1) host-record=hostname,alias,alias,IP  the alias's are returned as A
> records instead of CNAMEs, I'm guessing that was a conscious decision on
> your part, but it seems that for a more typical hostname with multiple
> CNAMEs, this is maybe not ideal, what do you think?

The effect is the same, and the multiple A records are simpler than 
CNAMES, so why not?

> 2) cname=test_cname,target_name  if I do a "dig CNAME test_cname", it
> will forward the request to the upstream server, but if I do a "dig A
> test_name", then it will resolve it as a CNAME and answer with the CNAME
> & A as expected.  Is that a bug or a feature?

> 3) on a perhaps related note, if I define a cname= without a
> corresponding /etc/hosts or host-record entry, it will never answer for
> the CNAME.  So we cannot use cname to define aliases on hosts that we
> are not hosting an A record for?  Is that a bug or a feature?

Unfortunate feature; it it could easily be otherwise, it would be. It's 



> regards,
> Rob
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list