Re: DNAME RR support

Hi Michael,

DNAME support was added in 3.4.0, but was disabled by default 
(experimental-dname-processing=no). For 4.0.0 we have dropped the 
experimental prefix but it is still disabled by default for performance 
reasons - enabling it does cause a few more queries to your backend. 
Hope that helps!

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/

On 26 Jan 2016, at 21:19, [email protected] wrote:

> I know this has been requested in the past, however I wanted to lobby 
> for its potent inclusion for the upcoming 4.0 release of PDNS in a 
> fresh thread.
>
>
> In previous posts I've seen people give examples of scripts that can 
> automate the creation of CNAME records for the back-end to compensate 
> for the lack of a DNAME RR, however I think approach contributes to a 
> lot of unnecessary bloat on the back-end, and fails to address the 
> manageability aspect.
>
>
> My company's line of business is managed services and co-location, we 
> have 10 datacenters in 8 different cities. We initially started off as 
> an ISP, and WAN/MAN connectivity is still a core competency. That 
> being said we have several public domains from acquisitions that are 
> essentially aliases to our parent domain.  As part of a clean up 
> effort, it would be preferable to consolidate hosts to the primary 
> public domain, and create DNAME's for all of the others to alias. This 
> would allow resolution for a host regardless of which domain suffix is 
> queried and without several thousand duplicate host records on the 
> back-end to synchronize or otherwise maintain.
>
> In addition to public forward domains, we have a considerable amount 
> of IP space that we are authoritative over. For RFC 2317 delegation's, 
> it would be preferable to leverage the DNAME RR for allocations >= 
> /24; which represents a respectable population of our reverse zone 
> delegations.
>
> RFC 6672 states:
>
> The DNAME record provides redirection for a subtree of the domain
> name tree in the DNS.  That is, all names that end with a particular
> suffix are redirected to another part of the DNS.  This document
> obsoletes the original specification in RFC 2672 as well as updates
> the document on representing IPv6 addresses in DNS (RFC 3363).
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6672
>
> If .com and .org are domains, then example.com and example.org would 
> be subtree's of those domains respectively. I'm the furthest thing 
> from an application programmer, and I would hate to assume, but would 
> it be very difficult to add DNAME support in the upcoming PDNS 
> release?
>
>
> I'm looking to do a complete overhaul of our DNS topology not long 
> after 4.0 is release for production use and DNAME's would definitely 
> solve a number of problems.
>
>
> Great product, and thanks for all of the hard work!
> _______________________________________________
> Pdns-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mailman.powerdns.com/listinfo/[email protected]