Hi all,
I encountered a problem when connecting 3 providers - each provider have the internal resources requiring specific DNS to access them, static hosts DNS list is not usable - differnt rules for for access from intranet and internet.
I propose to introduce addition functional to the DNS service - Conditional Forwarders as it realised in Microsoft DNS Server.
it look like : for hosts resolve in doman utlscort.com → use 172.16.0.10 DNS Server only
Bst rgds,
Sergey
I hope you succeed with your suggestion. It was suggested before, eight years passed since then, but no luck so far. Until it finally happens, you’re left with clever L7 hack from the linked thread.
Hi, L7 is not the right solution of the problem - it’s hack patch
The right solution is a parametric setting for DNS server.
It’s so strange that for 8 years nobody addressed a similar problem.
Interestingly - in Linux there is such a decision?
L7 is definitely not proper solution, I used the word “hack” myself. I just wanted to say that if you really need it right now, there’s a way to have it. Because waiting for proper solution might take a while.
Mikrotik is a ROUTER, not a DNS server…
Get a linux box, vm, whatever, and install bind 
Go away. 
But seriously, this is not a request for any advanced DNS server functionality. It’s just a request for very simple extension of already present DNS cache. Some might say that it’s in fact a very basic feature for DNS cache.
You are kidding?
Adding additional subsystems for releasing simple filter function to existing service it’s bad taste in the services development.
I have 35 years of programming and my customers just would have shoot me for such a proposal.
Now i realize this function on my PDC on Windows Server DNS service just adding 2 strings from UI
Don’t take it too hard. It’s just a part of ongoing philosophical dispute here on the forum, about the true purpose of RouterOS. Some people think that it should be just for routing, even though it’s no longer true, because it already has a lot of other features. If even it ever was true, because I remember non-routing features (e.g. web proxy) since the first RouterOS version I’ve seen. It still doesn’t prevent them from pursuing their “pure router” dream and shooting down ideas for non-routing features. In a way, they might be right, RouterOS should be mainly for routing. But arguing against something that’s already 90% there…