Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] ptr records - different behavior on CentOS and Debian ?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Mohit Chawla mohit.chawla.bin...@gmail.com wrote: I need to validate the correct behavior of dnsmasq when serving ptr records. I must have missed something before, things are working similarly on CentOS and Debian. Although I haven't added any ptr-record lines in the hosts file, answers to ptr queries are being returned successfully. Is this correct ?
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] ptr records - different behavior on CentOS and Debian ?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:30:31AM +0530, Mohit Chawla wrote: On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Mohit Chawla mohit.chawla.bin...@gmail.com wrote: I need to validate the correct behavior of dnsmasq when serving ptr records. I must have missed something before, things are working similarly on CentOS and Debian. Although I haven't added any ptr-record lines in the hosts file, answers to ptr queries are being returned successfully. Is this correct ? The hosts(5) file format is far simpler than a DNS zone file or a dnsmasq(8) config file. IP.add.re.ss name [alias ...]. dnsmasq assumes that the presence of a hosts listing for IP.add.re.ss means that you want a PTR for ss.re.add.IP.in-addr.arpa. to have that name. You can't put any specific DNS records in there; it's the job of dnsmasq to translate hosts into DNS. In addition, PTRs are returned for IP addresses subject to DHCP leases. I don't know how multiple hosts listings for the same IP address are handled by dnsmasq, but I'll bet it's in the [very] fine manual. :) -- Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless /dev/rob0 or not-spam is in Subject: header
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] ptr records - different behavior on CentOS and Debian ?
Hi, On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 9:25 PM, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote: The hosts(5) file format is far simpler than a DNS zone file or a dnsmasq(8) config file. IP.add.re.ss name [alias ...]. dnsmasq assumes that the presence of a hosts listing for IP.add.re.ss means that you want a PTR for ss.re.add.IP.in-addr.arpa. to have that name. You can't put any specific DNS records in there; it's the job of dnsmasq to translate hosts into DNS. Cool, thanks ! Then I guess the --ptr-record option is for the dnsmasq config file instead.
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] ptr records - different behavior on CentOS and Debian ?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:25:55PM +0530, Mohit Chawla wrote: On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 9:25 PM, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote: The hosts(5) file format is far simpler than a DNS zone file or a dnsmasq(8) config file. IP.add.re.ss name [alias ...]. dnsmasq assumes that the presence of a hosts listing for IP.add.re.ss means that you want a PTR for ss.re.add.IP.in-addr.arpa. to have that name. You can't put any specific DNS records in there; it's the job of dnsmasq to translate hosts into DNS. Cool, thanks ! Then I guess the --ptr-record option is for the dnsmasq config file instead. Right. I like using a dnsmasq.d directory for things like that, where records for a specific purpose are in their own modular file: conf-dir=/etc/dnsmasq.d -- Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless /dev/rob0 or not-spam is in Subject: header
Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] ptr records - different behavior on CentOS and Debian ?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:42 PM, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote: Right. I like using a dnsmasq.d directory for things like that, where records for a specific purpose are in their own modular file: conf-dir=/etc/dnsmasq.d Thanks. :)
