Does anyone know of a good authoritative DNS server that supports Dynamic DNS updates? Preferably exclusively standardized stuff. I currently run CoreDNS on my network, but dynamic registration isn't supported and might never be.
[dead]
Self-Hosting DNS
51–60 of 72 posts
Re: Self-Hosting DNS
#52Does anyone know of a good authoritative DNS server that supports Dynamic DNS updates? Preferably exclusively standardized stuff. I currently run CoreDNS on my network, but dynamic registration isn't supported and might never be.
Depending on your definition of "Dynamic DNS", you could check out PowerDNS.
Re: Self-Hosting DNS
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but to the root servers, not to someone else's cache.
I don't really see how this scales, on a global basis. Sure, one or two of us running our own resolvers isn't going to hurt, but an extra hundred million or so resolvers would hurt -> at best just causes all the servers targeted by the resolver to add more layers of caching
It's a good point, I never really thought about it. In my case I'm reluctant to use my ISP servers because my country tries to practise censorship via DNS, but I also didn't really feel like using something like Google. I will do some research and experimentation with upstream caches like Quad-9 and Cloudflare to see what it's like.
Re: Self-Hosting DNS
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's a practical argument as soon as someone else has to use it
Sure, but that is not the context here. So I am still unsure about the "evil" aspect of it all. Even if someone else has to use it. Certainly, when it is someone in their household who can access the administration for their client devices/applications as well. Other people affected might be those who make use of the authors wifi. Where the author can also opt for guest wifi using regular DNS. Or not even do it on ro…
> The only context in which it is potentially "evil" or malicious is when people unknowingly get things blocked or redirected to the wrong things.
that was kind of my point;
dns-infrastructure should not knowingly give wrong answers because that will make it less useful and more of a hassle down the road
Re: Self-Hosting DNS
#55Does anyone know of a good authoritative DNS server that supports Dynamic DNS updates? Preferably exclusively standardized stuff. I currently run CoreDNS on my network, but dynamic registration isn't supported and might never be.
Depending on your definition of "Dynamic DNS", you could check out PowerDNS.
I mean specifically in the RFC2136 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2136) sense.
It does look like PowerDNS supports it: https://doc.powerdns.com/authoritative/dnsupdate.html
Re: Self-Hosting DNS
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but that is not the context here. So I am still unsure about the "evil" aspect of it all. Even if someone else has to use it. Certainly, when it is someone in their household who can access the administration for their client devices/applications as well. Other people affected might be those who make use of the authors wifi. Where the author can also opt for guest wifi using regular DNS. Or not even do it on ro…
> The only context in which it is potentially "evil" or malicious is when people unknowingly get things blocked or redirected to the wrong things. that was kind of my point; dns-infrastructure should not knowingly give wrong answers because that will make it less useful and more of a hassle down the road
DNS and all the overall infra should do whatever the owner of the infra want it to do.
If i as the network admin don't want you to access some site i will block it, and blocking it at DNS level is one of the ways i have to achieve this and if i catch you trying to circumvent it you will be booted from my network in no time.
That is what local DNS servers are for and what solutions like Pi-Hole and AdGuard Home were desinged to accomplish..
There are many legitimate user cases that require you to mess with DNS. example, you can force google safe search in your network to all devices, google own instructions are to create a cname redirecting www.google.com to safesearch.google.com at your local DNS server.
So no, block or redirecting stuff in my DNS not only is not evil, it is required in many cases.
If you are trying to do something that is being blocked in the local network either talk to the network admin and explain why you need to do that and check if he can fix it for you and if he cant\wont then go do it somewhere else..
Also, most, if not all, the large enterprises do dns level blocking, as they should.. Go try work around this and i bet you they will call you out, insist and you will be job hunting in no time..
Re: Self-Hosting DNS
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but that is not the context here. So I am still unsure about the "evil" aspect of it all. Even if someone else has to use it. Certainly, when it is someone in their household who can access the administration for their client devices/applications as well. Other people affected might be those who make use of the authors wifi. Where the author can also opt for guest wifi using regular DNS. Or not even do it on ro…
> The only context in which it is potentially "evil" or malicious is when people unknowingly get things blocked or redirected to the wrong things. that was kind of my point; dns-infrastructure should not knowingly give wrong answers because that will make it less useful and more of a hassle down the road
> because that will make it less useful and more of a hassle down the road
You can't just say "it is this because it is this". Clearly the sole user of DNS finds it useful to block through DNS.
What sort of hassles do you even have in mind?
Re: Self-Hosting DNS
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but to the root servers, not to someone else's cache.
I don't really see how this scales, on a global basis. Sure, one or two of us running our own resolvers isn't going to hurt, but an extra hundred million or so resolvers would hurt -> at best just causes all the servers targeted by the resolver to add more layers of caching
DNS is highly distributed.
I doubt the current infra would have any problem handle the load even if all individual devices had a local resolver.
Re: Self-Hosting DNS
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only context in which it is potentially "evil" or malicious is when people unknowingly get things blocked or redirected to the wrong things. that was kind of my point; dns-infrastructure should not knowingly give wrong answers because that will make it less useful and more of a hassle down the road
DNS and all the overall infra should do whatever the owner of the infra want it to do. If i as the network admin don't want you to access some site i will block it, and blocking it at DNS level is one of the ways i have to achieve this and if i catch you trying to circumvent it you will be booted from my network in no time. That is what local DNS servers are for and what solutions like Pi-Hole and AdGuard Home were d…
well, there is certainly a lot to be said for efficiently checking boxes.
just wanted to point out that dns-level blocking introduces a discrepancy to a shared truth, which creates problems and is hence more costly than it might appear.
Re: Self-Hosting DNS
#60Aparently signing up for a subscription service now qualifies as "self-hosting" 8-)
I've been running bind9 on a computer under my desk for about 20 years.
The only subdscription required is an ISP contract that includes static IP.
Maybe I'll get a netflix acct (never had one), and "self-host" some videos...