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

unbound: add CNAME support #1041

Closed
fichtner opened this Issue Jun 27, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@fichtner
Member

fichtner commented Jun 27, 2016

PTR was also asked for, maybe we should make the framework more flexible...

via: https://forum.opnsense.org/index.php?topic=3246.0

@fichtner fichtner added the feature label Jun 27, 2016

@fichtner fichtner added this to the 17.1 milestone Jun 27, 2016

@fichtner fichtner self-assigned this Jun 27, 2016

@AdSchellevis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@AdSchellevis

AdSchellevis Jun 27, 2016

Member

@fichtner we can include the unbound cname tag, but its not very likely that it will actually work. From what I can find.

The only time your entry will be returned is if the client queries for a CNAME, which in practice means it'll probably be returned quite rarely

(source https://www.bentasker.co.uk/documentation/linux/279-unbound-adding-custom-dns-records)

The information on the unbound mailing list:
http://unbound.net/pipermail/unbound-users/2009-March/000509.html

Add the tag any way? or close the issue?

Member

AdSchellevis commented Jun 27, 2016

@fichtner we can include the unbound cname tag, but its not very likely that it will actually work. From what I can find.

The only time your entry will be returned is if the client queries for a CNAME, which in practice means it'll probably be returned quite rarely

(source https://www.bentasker.co.uk/documentation/linux/279-unbound-adding-custom-dns-records)

The information on the unbound mailing list:
http://unbound.net/pipermail/unbound-users/2009-March/000509.html

Add the tag any way? or close the issue?

@fichtner

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fichtner

fichtner Jun 27, 2016

Member

Let's keep it on 17.1, wait for feedback. It should be possible to add this in the advanced settings to collect valuable information of how that works out from the actual client side and that will likely decide in the end :)

Member

fichtner commented Jun 27, 2016

Let's keep it on 17.1, wait for feedback. It should be possible to add this in the advanced settings to collect valuable information of how that works out from the actual client side and that will likely decide in the end :)

@fichtner

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fichtner

fichtner Nov 18, 2016

Member

don't really need this it seems

Member

fichtner commented Nov 18, 2016

don't really need this it seems

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment