If the domain owner *really* feels that they have to publish *some*
address record for a particular name, but there is no available service
at that name, then the null or "unspecified" address (IPv4 = 0.0.0.0,
IPv6 = ::0) is the appropriate value to put there.
Loopback is anti-social; an apparent attempt to make the client waste
resources connecting to itself. In legal terms, one might call this an
"attractive nuisance".
- Kevin
P.S. I wish more load-balancer vendors would understand, appreciate and
adopt the use of the null/unspecified address to mean "no service
available here".
P.P.S. I credit Mark Andrews for opening my eyes to the proper use of
null/unspecified.
On 1/10/2014 11:36 PM, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On 2014-01-10 15:01, Eduardo Bonsi wrote:
...
It seems like they have their domain configuration A Record pointed
to the localhost. We all know that the localhost is not routable
outside of the internet. Therefore I am sure their website cannot
resolve out of the 127.0.0.1.
In addition to that, it is possible that this is happening only here
because of the way our Server configuration is setup in the OS X to
bring the resolver to the localhost first before it can go out to the
distributed domains/websites through the Apache conf.
...
There seems to be a pile of misconceptions here.
(1) There is no requirement at all that a domain name have an A
record. It does not have to resolve to an IP address at all. It only
has to have an SOA record and an NS record (preferably more than one);
and not even that, if it is a subdomain that is not a separate zone.
(2) There is no requirement that a domain name refer to the Web site
for that domain. I personally don't like that (for no special
reason), and neither apparently does the owner of this domain, who
forces people to go to the trouble of typing in www.p3net.net to get
to his or her Web site. Incidentally, there is no requirement that
the domain name refer to a mail server, either (which used to be
common before the Web existed), or to an FTP server, or to a Telnet
server, or to a nuclear reactor control device. Or to anything.
(3) However, any name MAY resolve to any IP address, routable or not.
That doesn't mean there's anything useful, or even related to that
domain, at that IP address.
(4) "127.0.0.1" is the IP equivalent of the English language word
"me". If I say, "me", I am referring to myself. If you say, "me", you
are referring to yourself. It cannot be used to direct anyone to
somewhere else. In fact, some use it to deflect probers AWAY from
themselves, and back on the prober's own server. (E.g., if I wanted
to probe "p3net.net", my server would be probing itself!)
(5) 127.0.0.1 is not among the IP addresses mislabeled as
"unroutable". It is always routable. To right here. Well, for you,
right there.
(6) Just because OS X has 127.0.0.1 as the resolver has no effect on
what that resolver returns. Don't confuse the concepts.
I think there were some others, but it's getting late.
Joe Yao
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to
unsubscribe from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
