Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature request: PTR records #46

Open
jermudgeon opened this issue Jul 1, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

Feature request: PTR records #46

jermudgeon opened this issue Jul 1, 2022 · 3 comments

Comments

@jermudgeon
Copy link

Updating PTR records for A and AAAA records would be a tremendously useful feature.

@ppajersk
Copy link
Collaborator

ppajersk commented Jul 1, 2022

This could become a more in-depth change to the overall structure, since the key map would need to be changed for ptr records, but this should also be achievable. I'm thinking again this could be flag controlled, since other people using this script might not want that feature to exist by default. I may consider providing a control structure to allow for this script to port any kind of record, instead of just A and TxT records like it currently does.

@jermudgeon
Copy link
Author

Other kinds of records could be useful, but would definitely require more logic. (CNAME handling, for example.) I'm leery enough of netbox' DNS support overall... but having valid PTR records are a huge driver of automation for me.

@ppajersk
Copy link
Collaborator

ppajersk commented Jul 1, 2022

I think it also depends on the use-cases. This script was originally for a very specific use case, so there would need more planning to expand the scope like how you're suggesting. Just need to determine where the line is drawn with how the script is modified.

For instance, the script was only designed to handle A records, so a redesign would need to consider a modular approach to handling new types of records, since it would be too much work to initially add support for every record type. I would need to abstract the concepts I developed, and then add support for others to add in their desired functionality via GitHub.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants