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
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

Reply via email to