[Dnsmasq-discuss] change in behavior where v4 address exists but not v6 in 2.86

Todd Derr salty at bandcamp.com
Fri Sep 17 17:51:05 UTC 2021


On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 at 09:45 AM Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar at fantomas.sk>
wrote:>Sep 14 20:50:08 dnsmasq[31529]: query[AAAA] dummy.com from 127.0.0.1

> >Sep 14 20:50:08 dnsmasq[31529]: forwarded dummy.com to 8.8.8.8
> >Sep 14 20:50:08 dnsmasq[31529]: forwarded dummy.com to 8.8.4.4
> >Sep 14 20:50:08 dnsmasq[31529]: reply dummy.com is <CNAME>
>
> this is strange, from here it does not look like dummy.com is a CNAME.
>
> is someone hijacking DNS records for dummy.com in addition to yourself?
>

sorry, I should have been more clear: dummy.com is not the actual name, I
replaced a goofy internal name with dummy.com.... given the "internal name"
is in DNS I guess it's not exactly a secret, but it's definitely a CNAME


> >Is there any way to disable it? As a workaround I added this to the
> config,
> >which may have the same basic effect as NODATA but it's hacky and worries
> >me a bit:
> >
> >address=/dummy.com/::
>
> this is not hacky, but documented:
>

Sorry again, the hacky part to me is returning `::` instead of NODATA-IPv6
as it did previously.  AFAICT there is no way via configuration to say
"this hostname has a v4 address but no v6 address" (or vice-versa).  The
2.85 behaviour looks like it did that implicitly if one existed but not the
other.

That being said, I also had a report from a coworker that they are *not*
seeing this behavior on 2.86, and another who said they have similar issues
with 2.80, although I haven't been able to confirm that with my own eyes.
On my machine it seems pretty cut & dry, just switching from 2.85 to 2.86
with the same config changes the behavior.

todd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20210917/b6f11cb9/attachment.htm>


More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list