> On 1/10/14, 8:36 PM, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
> There seems to be a pile of misconceptions here.
Joseph,
1. No one from this list that answered to my original question actually showed
any degree of confusion, (including myself). There were only observations on
the subject, nothing more...
2. All your (6) observations on the subject are very basic 101 stuff and have
very little to do with what I originally asked. I have not contested or said
what a person can and cannot do with their own Bind configuration.
3. What I originally asked and what I also suspected to be the answer, (has
already been answered here), so I am not going to repeat myself in those things
you actually missed.
Thanks for your views!
Eduardo
--
Eduardo Bonsi
System Admin
BEARTCOMMUNICATIONS
beart...@pacbell.net
________________________________
From: Joseph S D Yao <j...@tux.org>
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: Sites that points their A Record to localhost
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
