From 53cba9039ab96fb90a146dc65290852d8fa43c87 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Matthew C. Morgan" Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:28:43 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?=F0=9F=93=9D=20docs(README):=20add=20notes=20ab?= =?UTF-8?q?out=20cname=20vs=20alias=20records?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- README.md | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index e0bbfcc..6b618d9 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -1,6 +1,15 @@ # tfmod-eks-dns This module is designed to add DNS to an EKS cluster through the creation of the route53_zone for the cluster domain. +As discussed in PR #7, the data items in the upstream module caused issues with planning. We don't need the heritage records from the aws-dns module either.... +digging deeper, it seems we haven't been using cname/alias records. They are different than strict cnames -> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/resource-record-sets-choosing-alias-non-alias.html + +the aws module docs have a note: `Exactly one of records or alias must be specified: this determines whether it's an alias record.` +in my 15s of research, every place we have created lb cnames we used a cname record, and the module for cname records isn't using alias. + +There is a minor cost savings from this - alias record queries are not charged -> `Route 53 doesn't charge for alias queries to AWS resources. For more information, see [Amazon Route 53 Pricing](https://aws.amazon.com/route53/pricing/).` + +Additional information regarding comparison of alias and cname records -> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/resource-record-sets-choosing-alias-non-alias.html#resource-record-sets-choosing-alias-non-alias-comparison ## Changelog Change logs are auto-generated with commitizen.