You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Problem statement
We need consistency between IP addresses and names:
when adding an IP address, a (A or AAAA) DNS record must be created.
when deleting and IP address, the corresponding DNS record must be deleted.
Approach
The solution is based on three additional fields associated with the IP Address, "name", "zone" and "dns_record". When we submit the form or post data to the API, both the IP address and the DNS record are created, and the "dns_record" field points to the record. Ditto for deleting the IP Address with a linked DNS record.
Alternatives
As an alternative, I have considered using the "dns_name" field. Using this field entails several problems:
it is only an informative field,
as a character string, there is no possibility to use the Zone object,
there is no way to enforce permissions on DNS objects (Zone, Records),
finally, there is no guarantee of consistency between DNS records and IP addresses.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @jean1, after another round of commits (this time abandoning the middleware concept altogether) I think the experimental feature should be generally working, even with custom scripts (see issue #105).
I'm planning on some enhancements (making the automatism more general and more comfortable), but for the time being this looks pretty useful to me. Thank you very much again for your help!
Problem statement
We need consistency between IP addresses and names:
Approach
The solution is based on three additional fields associated with the IP Address, "name", "zone" and "dns_record". When we submit the form or post data to the API, both the IP address and the DNS record are created, and the "dns_record" field points to the record. Ditto for deleting the IP Address with a linked DNS record.
Alternatives
As an alternative, I have considered using the "dns_name" field. Using this field entails several problems:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: