[Dnsmasq-discuss] Authoritative and recursive service from the same interface
Simon Kelley
simon at thekelleys.org.uk
Fri Oct 5 16:53:37 BST 2018
On 28/09/18 23:46, Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 28/09/18 23:07, Marc Heckmann wrote:
>> Very nice, I will test this.
>>
>> I am curious though: what will be used for the NS record if the
>> auth-server configuration is omitted?
>
>
> It appears to return an NS record of "." ie the DNS root. Which is not
> particularly sensible. This may need some more thought....
>
With a little more clarity of thought, it's clear that omitting
auth-server is not sensible, but it should be possible to omit the
interface name(s) from auth-server.
I just pushed an update which does this: it crashes with an error if an
auth-zone is defined bu there is no auth-server. It allows auth-server
to have no interface-names or addresses, just the glue record domain name.
Cheers,
Simon.
> Simon.
>
>>
>> -m
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:42 PM Simon Kelley <simon at thekelleys.org.uk
>> <mailto:simon at thekelleys.org.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> On 28/09/18 02:33, Marc Heckmann wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I'm currently running dnsmasq in a Docker container and have setup a
>> > domain for which dnsmasq is to be authoritative for. This is to do
>> > subdomain delegation to the dnsmasq server. I am using the
>> auth-server &
>> > auth-zone configuration options for this. This works as expected
>> and is
>> > verifiable using dig with the "+norecurse" option to query for the NS
>> > and SOA records. However, as it's a Docker container, I only have and
>> > actually need a single interface (eth0) and when I specify eth0 in the
>> > "auth-server" option, i.e "auth-server=<glue_record>,eth0", I noticed
>> > that it stops answering recursive queries for names that it is not
>> > authoritative for.
>> >
>> > I worked around this by replacing "eth0" with an IP that is not
>> present
>> > in the container's network namespace and dnsmasq now does what I want
>> > which is to answer to both non-recursive and recursive queries
>> from the
>> > same interface.
>> >
>> > My question is the following: Are there any side effects to this hack?
>> > Is there any reason why dnsmasq should not be able to provide
>> recursive
>> > and authoritative service from the same interface? I can
>> understand the
>> > security reasons for wanting to prevent this on an Internet exposed
>> > interface, but why not at allow for an option to officially support
>> > providing both kinds of service on the same interface?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > -m
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> This patch, in the pending 2.80 release, addresses this, is allows you
>> to omit the auth-server configuration and get both recursive and
>> authoritative answers on the interface(s) that dnsmasq is listening on.
>>
>> http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commitdiff;h=397c0502e255ea0a470982666dea93e0b2f52043
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
>> > Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
>> <mailto:Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk>
>> > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
>> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
>> <mailto:Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk>
>> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
>>
>
More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss
mailing list