On 28/09/18 23:46, Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 28/09/18 23:07, Marc Heckmann wrote:
>> Very nice, I will test this.
>>
>> I am curious though: what will be used for the NS record if the
>> auth-server configuration is omitted?
> 
> 
> It appears to return an NS record of "." ie the DNS root. Which is not
> particularly sensible. This may need some more thought....
> 


With a little more clarity of thought, it's clear that omitting
auth-server is not sensible, but it should be possible to omit the
interface name(s) from auth-server.

I just pushed an update which does this: it crashes with an error if an
auth-zone is defined bu there is no auth-server. It allows auth-server
to have no interface-names or addresses, just the glue record domain name.



Cheers,

Simon.

> Simon.
> 
>>
>> -m
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:42 PM Simon Kelley <si...@thekelleys.org.uk
>> <mailto:si...@thekelleys.org.uk>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 28/09/18 02:33, Marc Heckmann wrote:
>>     > Hello,
>>     >
>>     > I'm currently running dnsmasq in a Docker container and have setup a
>>     > domain for which dnsmasq is to be authoritative for. This is to do
>>     > subdomain delegation to the dnsmasq server. I am using the
>>     auth-server &
>>     > auth-zone configuration options for this. This works as expected
>>     and is
>>     > verifiable using dig with the "+norecurse" option to query for the NS
>>     > and SOA records. However, as it's a Docker container, I only have and
>>     > actually need a single interface (eth0) and when I specify eth0 in the
>>     > "auth-server" option, i.e "auth-server=<glue_record>,eth0", I noticed
>>     > that it stops answering recursive queries for names that it is not
>>     > authoritative for.
>>     >
>>     > I worked around this by replacing "eth0" with an IP that is not
>>     present
>>     > in the container's network namespace and dnsmasq now does what I want
>>     > which is to answer to both non-recursive and recursive queries
>>     from the
>>     > same interface.
>>     >
>>     > My question is the following: Are there any side effects to this hack?
>>     > Is there any reason why dnsmasq should not be able to provide
>>     recursive
>>     > and authoritative service from the same interface? I can
>>     understand the
>>     > security reasons for wanting to prevent this on an Internet exposed
>>     > interface, but why not at allow for an option to officially support
>>     > providing both kinds of service on the same interface?
>>     >
>>     > Thanks.
>>     >
>>     > -m
>>     >
>>     >
>>
>>
>>     This patch, in the pending 2.80 release, addresses this, is allows you
>>     to omit the auth-server configuration and get both recursive and
>>     authoritative answers on the interface(s) that dnsmasq is listening on.
>>
>>     
>> http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commitdiff;h=397c0502e255ea0a470982666dea93e0b2f52043
>>
>>
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>
>>     Simon.
>>
>>
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
>>     > Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
>>     <mailto:Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk>
>>     > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
>>     >
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
>>     Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
>>     <mailto:Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk>
>>     http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
>>
> 


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

Reply via email to