On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:39:36PM -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 22:44 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > > > > note twice a query on NS of example.com > > Yes. That is part of my original report. I query it twice and it > returns inconsistent results. Strange and, I think, the reason why we have this thread.
> > # dig +short @127.0.0.1 example.com. ns > > > server.example.com. > > > # dig +short @127.0.0.1 mail.example.com. > > > 9.1.1.18 > > > # dig +short @127.0.0.1 interlinx.bc.ca. ns > > > > Hey, that one was not in the original post. > > Oh damnit. Was just doing a bit of anonymizing and missed one. > That will teach me not to use tools for that. Better not alternating facts. > In any case "interlinx.bc.ca" should actually be "example.com" to > maintain consistency of the report. > > > Back to what the original problem is. (explain what > > inconsistent use of a server=/example.com/<ip_addr> specification > > is supposed to mean) > > It's inconsistent in that multiple queries for example.com's NSes > return inconsistent results. Sometimes it returns the address > configured with: > > server=/example.com/10.75.22.247 > > (i.e. returns 10.75.22.247) and other times it returns the addresses > configured on the global Internet for the NSes for example.com. But it > shouldn't be doing that. The above server=/example.com/10.75.22.247 > should be preventing any lookup of example.com's NSes from anywhere. > They should be "fixed" in dnsmasq's configuration to be 10.75.22.247 > per the above server= configuration. So "The above server=/example.com/10.75.22.247 should be preventing any lookup of example.com's NSes from anywhere." I think I begin to understand what Original Poster wants. But NOT what might be causing the inconsistancy. I hope that OP digs deeper. Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
