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

Rob Zwissler rob at zwissler.org
Mon Apr 16 19:09:14 BST 2012

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Simon Kelley <simon at thekelleys.org.uk>wrote:

> 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?
The only way that affected me was when I was running scripts comparing
output from a bind migration
and it complicated things; so I guess the reason would be documention for
administrator purposes, but
that's not really very compelling, as you point out the effect for end
users should be the same, I can't
think of any exceptions to that.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20120416/e73dc662/attachment.html>

More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list