Skip to content

[dns-server] Answers for the rack's zones should be authoritative #8120

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

iximeow
Copy link
Member

@iximeow iximeow commented May 8, 2025

This makes most answers authoritative and changes tests to match. This won't change rack-internal DNS behavior; we don't rely on aa in answers for anything internal. External DNS servers will also now set the aa bit for queries for silo domains, though, so our DNS answers will look a bit more normal.

We're authoritative for NXDomain answers to names under the zones a server is authoritative for that are not present, though we're not (yet) sending an SOA record to indicate how long a client can cache the negative reuslt.

We are not authoritative for ServFail answers even if they are for names we're authoritative for. The aa bit here has no RFC-defined meaning, and this is more straightforward than trying to partition ServFail into "our names" and "not our names" kinds.

This makes most answers authoritative and changes tests to match. This
won't change rack-internal DNS behavior; we don't rely on `aa` in
answers for anything internal. External DNS servers will also now set
the `aa` bit for queries for silo domains, though, so our DNS answers
will look a bit more normal.

We're authoritative for `NXDomain` answers to names under the zones a
server is authoritative for that are not present, though we're not (yet)
sending an SOA record to indicate how long a client can cache the
negative reuslt.

We are *not* authoritative for `ServFail` answers even if they are for
names we're authoritative for. The `aa` bit here has no RFC-defined
meaning.
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 this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant