Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CNAME records acting unlike how I would expect #611

Closed
ryan77627 opened this issue Aug 17, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #794
Closed

CNAME records acting unlike how I would expect #611

ryan77627 opened this issue Aug 17, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #794

Comments

@ryan77627
Copy link

ryan77627 commented Aug 17, 2023

Hello! First of all, thanks for this project, it seems to be the closest solution yet to the problem I am trying to solve right now.

I have a question about CNAME records that very well could be my own fault, but I cannot figure out: how do I actually use them? I have a zone that Gravity is authoritative for, and have set up some A records that point to various hosts in my network. I would expect to be able to set CNAME records to reference various services, however the CNAMEs never resolve properly. nslookup returns no answer, same with dig. Only way I can get an answer from Gravity is by specifically requesting a CNAME using dig CNAME addr.ess.here, which isn't great since that means the name doesn't work at all in any of my applications.

Example:

Zone: sub.domain.com

(Type -> Name -> Value)
A -> host1 -> 192.168.1.1
CNAME -> gravity -> host1.sub.domain.com

nslookup for gravity.sub.domain.com should result in 192.168.1.1 (canonical name = host1.sub.domain.com)

If more detail is needed please let me know

@mastpsp
Copy link

mastpsp commented Sep 13, 2023

@BeryJu Hello! Thx for your project. CNAME records are not working for me, A records are working fine. When do you plan to fix this bug?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants