[Dnsmasq-discuss] Becoming authoritative DNS for additional netblock
Albert ARIBAUD
albert.aribaud at free.fr
Wed Dec 2 08:50:17 GMT 2015
Hi "A C",
Le Wed, 2 Dec 2015 00:00:06 -0800
A C <agcme at hotmail.com> a écrit:
> > I infer that what you have in your working config is not
> >
> > server=/vpn.example.com/10.0.0.140
> > local=/vpn.example.com/
> >
> > as indicated above, but actually
> >
> > server=/vpn.example.com/10.0.0.140
> > local=/example.com/
> >
> > and what you witness is that it works in this order, but will not
> > work in that order:
> >
> > local=/example.com/
> > server=/vpn.example.com/10.0.0.140
> >
> > Am I correct?
> >
>
>
> Yes, that was a typo on my part. The actual config file has
> local=/example.com/ I just typed the vpn into the email by accident.
> The config file has no other local directives.
>
> Also, your final observation is correct. If local appears before
> server, the queries to the subdomain fail. If local appears after
> server it works. Just for fun I tried out a couple extra server lines
> that point to entirely different domains outside of mine (e.g.
> server=/example.org/1.2.3.4 where local=/example.com/). In that case
> the position of server and local doesn't matter the query is forwarded
> as I remembered from previous usage. So there appears to be an
> interaction between local and server when both contain the same domain
> and the order must be from most specific to least specific.
Hmm. Option --local is supposed to be syntactic sugar for "--server
without a server IP" (or maybe even just a synonym if the manpage is
literal about it), and --server is supposed to be order-insensitive,
so it /looks/ like the dnsmasq documentation and actual behaviour differ
here.
I guess at this point, Simon (now To:) is the one to confirm the issue
and analysis.
Amicalement,
--
Albert.
More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss
mailing list