On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 at 09:45 AM Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote:>Sep 14 20:50:08 dnsmasq[31529]: query[AAAA] dummy.com from 127.0.0.1
> >Sep 14 20:50:08 dnsmasq[31529]: forwarded dummy.com to 8.8.8.8 > >Sep 14 20:50:08 dnsmasq[31529]: forwarded dummy.com to 8.8.4.4 > >Sep 14 20:50:08 dnsmasq[31529]: reply dummy.com is <CNAME> > > this is strange, from here it does not look like dummy.com is a CNAME. > > is someone hijacking DNS records for dummy.com in addition to yourself? > sorry, I should have been more clear: dummy.com is not the actual name, I replaced a goofy internal name with dummy.com.... given the "internal name" is in DNS I guess it's not exactly a secret, but it's definitely a CNAME > >Is there any way to disable it? As a workaround I added this to the > config, > >which may have the same basic effect as NODATA but it's hacky and worries > >me a bit: > > > >address=/dummy.com/:: > > this is not hacky, but documented: > Sorry again, the hacky part to me is returning `::` instead of NODATA-IPv6 as it did previously. AFAICT there is no way via configuration to say "this hostname has a v4 address but no v6 address" (or vice-versa). The 2.85 behaviour looks like it did that implicitly if one existed but not the other. That being said, I also had a report from a coworker that they are *not* seeing this behavior on 2.86, and another who said they have similar issues with 2.80, although I haven't been able to confirm that with my own eyes. On my machine it seems pretty cut & dry, just switching from 2.85 to 2.86 with the same config changes the behavior. todd
_______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
