3 ms·

They pretty clearly talk about public hosts, so it seems quite likely that they are in fact doing split-horizon DNS (i.e. machine1.site.com will be resolved to

They pretty clearly talk about public hosts, so it seems quite likely that they are in fact doing split-horizon DNS (i.e. machine1.site.com will be resolved to an ULA address if the query is coming from the same subnet, or to the public address otherwise).

simoncion 2y ago
IF homie is serving public-facing DNS for the site with the same server that's serving local DNS, then yeah, sure, split-horizon DNS is probably the thing that you'd do. But: > They pretty clearly talk about public hosts Thing is, I ALSO have public hosts on my LAN. And they're in both the public DNS and in the DNS on my LAN. But public DNS is not served from my local DNS, so I don't have a split-horizon setup. The mere act of maintaining (in two entirely unrelated DNS servers) records for the same resource but with different data doesn't make a split-horizon setup. If it did, then I could reasonably claim "I'm running a split-horizon setup for mit.com!" just by adding an A record for "mit.com" to my local DNS server, despite being neither connected to any MIT internal networks, nor in a position to serve any data to MIT's Internet clients.
- ninkendo 2y ago
  "homie" here. I do DNS such that the same hostname, which I control, resolves to the ULA address if asking locally, but the public address if asking from an external machine. But it's not literally the same server, I use DNSimple for my public DNS and unbound on my local DNS. You can split hairs about whether split horizon means "the same DNS server serving both views" or not, but that's a needlessly pedantic snipe. But to cut off this argument: Sure, you're right. You score one internet point, I used the word "split horizon" incorrectly. You're very smart.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > You're very smart. No, I'm really rock-stupid. I also happen to be correct about the terminology.

simoncion 2y ago

IF homie is serving public-facing DNS for the site with the same server that's serving local DNS, then yeah, sure, split-horizon DNS is probably the thing that you'd do. But: > They pretty clearly talk about public hosts Thing is, I ALSO have public hosts on my LAN. And they're in both the public DNS and in the DNS on my LAN. But public DNS is not served from my local DNS, so I don't have a split-horizon setup. The mere act of maintaining (in two entirely unrelated DNS servers) records for the same resource but with different data doesn't make a split-horizon setup. If it did, then I could reasonably claim "I'm running a split-horizon setup for mit.com!" just by adding an A record for "mit.com" to my local DNS server, despite being neither connected to any MIT internal networks, nor in a position to serve any data to MIT's Internet clients.

ninkendo 2y ago
"homie" here. I do DNS such that the same hostname, which I control, resolves to the ULA address if asking locally, but the public address if asking from an external machine. But it's not literally the same server, I use DNSimple for my public DNS and unbound on my local DNS. You can split hairs about whether split horizon means "the same DNS server serving both views" or not, but that's a needlessly pedantic snipe. But to cut off this argument: Sure, you're right. You score one internet point, I used the word "split horizon" incorrectly. You're very smart.
- simoncion 2y ago
  > You're very smart. No, I'm really rock-stupid. I also happen to be correct about the terminology.