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

Record aliases/CNAME flattening #24

Open
csmith opened this issue Nov 26, 2017 · 5 comments
Open

Record aliases/CNAME flattening #24

csmith opened this issue Nov 26, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@csmith
Copy link
Collaborator

csmith commented Nov 26, 2017

It'd be nice to support something like Cloudflare's CNAME flattening, allowing the root domain of a zone to be effectively aliased to a subdomain (or, perhaps, a different domain also hosted my mydnshost?).

Instead of overloading and confusing CNAME records, I think having something like an 'ALIAS' record type would be nice. The records can then be copied when the zone(s) are changed (so it's all transparent to Bind).

@ShaneMcC
Copy link
Member

I think a dedicated ALIAS record that we then do special-processing on is the best way to go with this.

My initial thoughts are that at zone-compile time we just do an AAAA/A lookup then write those out instead of the ALIAS record.

This lets us be more flexible (allows us to point anywhere not just records hosted with us) but there are some issues:

  • Circular dependencies on ALIAS records will resolve strangely
  • How often do we refresh the ALIAS
  • Anything that gets ALIASed that normally does dns-based load balancing is going to get balanced based on the location of our web frontend, not the remote user.

@ShaneMcC
Copy link
Member

ShaneMcC commented Nov 5, 2018

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-aname-01 will also solve this if it happens before I do anything hacky...

@ShaneMcC
Copy link
Member

ANAME poses interesting DNSSEC challenges for auto-signing, if the slave servers don't have the DNSSEC keys they can't sign an ANAME record... hmm.

@ShaneMcC
Copy link
Member

ShaneMcC commented Aug 4, 2020

Looks like the ANAME spec already considers that. The master does the resolving and returns ANAME and A/AAAA records in zone transfers so that the secondary servers are able to return signed A/AAAA responses. Would result in #62 being more important as our database-serial may be significantly lower than the real serial after a while.

@ShaneMcC
Copy link
Member

ShaneMcC commented Oct 26, 2021

If we ever do this, think of: #131 (ipv4hint and ipv6hint on SVCB/HTTPS records)

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants