[Walf]

I wasn't talking about your opinion of it, I was simply using a rhetorical question to point out the nonsensical premise of your response:

>Wait…what? You have a fully internal service and you dont have an internal DNS server?

You can't do split horizon without an internal DNS service. By definition it's a non-public service that gives separate results to public.

[master_crab]

Because I was responding to this comment you had made:

So what's your solution when you have a wholly private service that will never have a public v4 address, nor a publicly routable v6? How do clients get the address for a nice domain name without the addresses in public DNS?

Which, if you claim you use private DNS, you know you can indeed solve by only having the private records sit on your private DNS service that can only be hit by clients on the internal network. Without the architectural bad practice of implementing split horizon.

[Walf]

Mate, what on Earth are you talking about? A private DNS server that can only be hit by clients on an internal network, which differs from public DNS, is split horizon.

[master_crab]

Bless your sweet heart if you think private DNS servers are split horizon. :)

[Walf]

Is there some reason you're being a patronising prick? Or do you really not know the definition of spilt horizon?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-horizon_DNS

I could not have been clearer that the private DNS servers I use provide different results from public, for the same names, which is the split. Not all private DNS servers are split horizon, and nothing I wrote implies that that's my understanding. If that's what you've concluded, then you've either failed to comprehend what I've written, or you're a troll.

[master_crab]

Apologies. Not trying to come across as a prick.

But at least we both agree private dns =/= split brain. :)