Sites that points their A Record to localhost

[Sten Carlsen]

Well, if I understand things, ::1 is the IPv6 equivalent of 127.0.0.1

So you could say the same here.


On 11/01/14 06.39, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
> Wow all this over a lowly 127.0.0.1. Hate to imagine what would have
> happened if it was an AAAA record. Sheesh nuclear fallout ? ;-)
>
> -- 
>  Jason Hellenthal
>  Voice: 95.30.17.6/616
>  JJH48-ARIN
>
> On Jan 10, 2014, at 23:36, Joseph S D Yao <jsdy at tux.org
> <mailto:jsdy at tux.org>> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-01-10 15:01, Eduardo Bonsi wrote:
>> ...
>>> It seems like they have their domain configuration A Record pointed
>>> to the localhost. We all know that the localhost is not routable
>>> outside of the internet. Therefore I am sure their website cannot
>>> resolve out of the 127.0.0.1.
>>> In addition to that, it is possible that this is happening only here
>>> because of the way our Server configuration is setup in the OS X to
>>> bring the resolver to the localhost first before it can go out to the
>>> distributed domains/websites through the Apache conf.
>> ...
>>
>>
>> There seems to be a pile of misconceptions here.
>>
>> (1) There is no requirement at all that a domain name have an A
>> record. It does not have to resolve to an IP address at all.  It only
>> has to have an SOA record and an NS record (preferably more than
>> one); and not even that, if it is a subdomain that is not a separate
>> zone.
>>
>> (2) There is no requirement that a domain name refer to the Web site
>> for that domain.  I personally don't like that (for no special
>> reason), and neither apparently does the owner of this domain, who
>> forces people to go to the trouble of typing in www.p3net.net
>> <http://www.p3net.net> to get to his or her Web site.  Incidentally,
>> there is no requirement that the domain name refer to a mail server,
>> either (which used to be common before the Web existed), or to an FTP
>> server, or to a Telnet server, or to a nuclear reactor control
>> device.  Or to anything.
>>
>> (3) However, any name MAY resolve to any IP address, routable or not.
>>  That doesn't mean there's anything useful, or even related to that
>> domain, at that IP address.
>>
>> (4) "127.0.0.1" is the IP equivalent of the English language word
>> "me". If I say, "me", I am referring to myself.  If you say, "me",
>> you are referring to yourself.  It cannot be used to direct anyone to
>> somewhere else.  In fact, some use it to deflect probers AWAY from
>> themselves, and back on the prober's own server.  (E.g., if I wanted
>> to probe "p3net.net <http://p3net.net>", my server would be probing
>> itself!)
>>
>> (5) 127.0.0.1 is not among the IP addresses mislabeled as
>> "unroutable". It is always routable.  To right here.  Well, for you,
>> right there.
>>
>> (6) Just because OS X has 127.0.0.1 as the resolver has no effect on
>> what that resolver returns.  Don't confuse the concepts.
>>
>> I think there were some others, but it's getting late.
>>
>> Joe Yao
>> _______________________________________________
>> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to
>> unsubscribe from this list
>>
>> bind-users mailing list
>> bind-users at lists.isc.org <mailto:bind-users at lists.isc.org>
>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list
>
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

-- 
Best regards

Sten Carlsen

No improvements come from shouting:

       "MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!" 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20140111/47bc7818/attachment-0001.html>