On 28 Jun 2024, at 17:48, Buck Horn via Dnsmasq-discuss <dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk> wrote: > > In order to restore pre-2.86 behaviour, the documentation explicitly > directs you to > > > (...) use the configuration --address=/example.com/1.2.3.4 > --local=/example.com/ > > Note that address and local literals match, which they don't do in your > configuration. > > But I agree that NXDOMAIN being answered from config is somewhat > surprising. > From the docs, I'd expected that request to have been forwarded upstream.
Yeah, that is indeed not the case, which is why the man page confused me. I.e. if I ask for some nonexistent name in the internal.example.com <http://internal.example.com/> domain, I see: dnsmasq: query[A] quux.internal.example.com from 127.0.0.1 dnsmasq: config quux.internal.example.com is NXDOMAIN i.e. it does not forward anything but immediately answers authoritatively. If I ask for an existing name, it returns an answer for the A record, but similarly answers authoritatively without forwarding: dnsmasq: query[A] foo.internal.example.com from 127.0.0.1 dnsmasq: config foo.internal.example.com is 10.1.2.3 dnsmasq: query[AAAA] foo.internal.example.com from 127.0.0.1 dnsmasq: config foo.internal.example.com is NXDOMAIN dnsmasq: query[MX] foo.internal.example.com from 127.0.0.1 dnsmasq: config foo.internal.example.com is NXDOMAIN I think we incorrectly interpreted the "To restore the pre-2.86 behaviour" section of the man page to mean that: local=/internal.example.com/ server=1.1.1.1 address=/foo.internal.example.com/10.1.2.3 would be sufficient to have those queries return NODATA. But instead, it seems you need: local=/internal.example.com/ server=1.1.1.1 address=/foo.internal.example.com/10.1.2.3 <http://foo.internal.example.com/10.1.2.3> local=/foo.internal.example.com/ <http://foo.internal.example.com/> and then duplicating the address & local lines for each fixed host. > However: > > On 28.06.24 15:38, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> Sure, that also appears to work. I just don't know what the preferred >> syntax is for declaring hosts that have fixed IP addresses, as opposed >> to hosts that get addresses dynamically via DHCP. > > If your use case is to provide names for hosts with static IP addresses, > that should probably be tackled by using a hosts file, or by using > host-records instead, e.g.: > > domain=example.com > domain-needed > host-record=foo,foo.example.com,10.1.2.3 > host-record=bar,bar.example.com,10.1.2.4 > > > Above 'domain-needed' would prevent that non-dot queries (e.g. for foo) > would be forwarded upstream. In this case non-dot queries are not relevant for us, just the ones for the subdomain name(s). We never want to forward anything for those. -Dimitry _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
