On 03/04/14 08:35, David Beveridge wrote: > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Simon Kelley <si...@thekelleys.org.uk> wrote: >> On 02/04/14 21:24, Simon Kelley wrote: >> >>> >>> This is, I think, just an oversight. synth-domain certainly generates >>> "Locally defined DNS records" which is what the auth-zone is specified >>> to contain. >>> >> >> Actually, there is a reason. It doesn't in general make sense to include >> the records created by synth-domain in a zone transfer, since there are >> likely to be a lot of them. They could be included in answers for the >> auth-zone, at the expense of the additional complication that the zone >> answered by dnsmasq becomes no longer exactly the zone that's transfered >> to a secondary (since the synth-domain answers can't be included in the >> transfer). >> > > I agree, you definitely would not want to zone transfer the entire synth zone > just the records from the auth zone. Actually, once you introduce synth > records to a zone, transferring it is not practical at all. > > I think I have misunderstood what auth-zone does. > It seems it is not required in this situation. > > I just tested and discovered that:- If I remove the auth-zone statement from > the config file the synth-zone will still serve records it finds in > /etc/hosts. > In this way I can still have a mixed zone with manually created records and > synthesized records in the same zone. > > The synth-domain kind of implies that the zone is authorative, > so no need for the auth-zone statement as well.
OK. Happy ending :) Cheers, Simon. > > dave > _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasqemail@example.com http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss