111–120 of 128 posts
http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3191-announcing-pow-040-with-...
This is a hack for devices where the user cannot access /etc/hosts? Running a local DNS server on these devices is also not possible? Can a user access ifconfig and change interface settings, e.g. adding an alias? In terms of networking, these devices appear to be crippled. Yet they do not have to be if they're built using code from BSD's.
I have a dd-wrt router with DNSmasq functioning as the DNS server for local hosts. DNSmasq resolves external domains using Google DNS (8.8.8.8/8.8.4.4). With this setup, domain names like 192.168.X.X.xip.io and 127.X.X.X.xip.io won't resolve, and I believe there is something wrong with my DNSmasq setup. Anyone else ran into similar issues? (Update) Problem solved by myself. The DNSmasq config has stop-dns-rebind opti…
Or you can add rebind-domain-ok=xip.io to dnsmasq.conf. Not that I would do that myself, as I still don't see what value it provides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
(The author of the software wrote a comment here: "So you're just here to shit on things?", which he has since deleted.) I genuinely and honestly cannot log into your Gandi account and fix your nameserver delegation, so that means I'm just here to shit on things? That's a logical leap for you? You are delegating xip.io to a nameserver that is refusing queries for your zone; that's seriously broken and can result in r…
Why? xip.io exists and works. If he had to read hundreds of pages of technical specs or thousands of lines of source to implement it, it wouldn't exist.
Feel free to make your own spec-compliant or better-working version though; Sam's done the same for RVM, and I'm sure he wouldn't have any problem with better software existing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right. I'm probably just running xip.io to steal all your sensitive development-mode form data!
Information you have access to: External ip addresses of requestees. Internal ip addresses of requestees. To some, this is very useful...
And I wrote a Ruby DSL to easily integrate with a real dns server (powerdns). Makes it trivially easy to write things like xip.io
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it interesting that we are required to do a second round-trip for the CNAME when it is available in the same bailiwick and could be sent as part of either the ADDITIONAL SECTION or as part of the ANSWER SECTION. Would you happen to know what the RFC has to say on this? I understand that CNAME's are not allowed to exist with other records, but returning it in the ADDITIONAL SECTION shouldn't be a cause for conc…
Once a CNAME exists for a name, no record of any other type may exist for that same name (it's an override for all types). But for a query like this, a server is allowed to return both a CNAME and its relevant target(s) ... as long as they are within-bailiwick. It can go right into the answer section, e.g.; % dig example.allcosts.net @ns-22.awsdns-02.com. ... ;; ANSWER SECTION: example.allcosts.net. 300 IN CNAME at.a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once a CNAME exists for a name, no record of any other type may exist for that same name (it's an override for all types). But for a query like this, a server is allowed to return both a CNAME and its relevant target(s) ... as long as they are within-bailiwick. It can go right into the answer section, e.g.; % dig example.allcosts.net @ns-22.awsdns-02.com. ... ;; ANSWER SECTION: example.allcosts.net. 300 IN CNAME at.a…
In fact, returning both the CNAME and the A in the initial response is required. Returning just the CNAME and setting NOERROR tells a recursor 'the target name exists but I do not have an A record for it'. Luckily, all recursors I am aware of are stubborn and will then ask for the A anyway.
So recursors would have to account for possibly broken implementations and try the query anyway.
This is pretty handy until were all switched over to IPv6 and we'll need to "to solve the problem once and for all" again.
In fact doesn't the whole idea of binding multiple sub-domains to the same IP address (on the same port) kind of go by the wayside when it's free/cheap/not-going-to-blow-up-the-internet to get another IP?