| To: | dns@list.cr.yp.to |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: NXDOMAIN Negative TTL |
| From: | Michael Shuler <mshuler@rackspace.com> |
| Date: | Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:13:37 -0600 |
| Delivered-to: | sp-com-lists@consult.net |
| Delivered-to: | gmail-djbdns@securepoint.com |
| Delivered-to: | sp.com.list@gmail.com |
| Delivered-to: | mailing list dns@list.cr.yp.to |
| In-reply-to: | <1172180151.2221.TMDA@sicilia.bradfords.org> |
| Mailing-list: | contact dns-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm |
| References: | <45DDE41B.3070809@rackspace.com> <1172180151.2221.TMDA@sicilia.bradfords.org> |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070102) |
Andy Bradford wrote: > You explicitly set the TTL to 86400. Try setting it to 300. Thanks for the reply, Andy. You are exactly correct that setting the default SOA record TTL to 300 is a workaround, as I mentioned in my original post. I also tested without setting an SOA TTL and tinydns responds with the internal default minimum TTL of 2560. If I have explicitly set the SOA.MINIMUM TTL to 300, is tinydns' intended behavior to ignore this data field? This is acceptable to me, if that is the intention - I am mostly looking for verification of the reply inconsistency. A few impatient customers got stuck with longer than expected cached negative TTLs after they queried newly added hosts, before the new host records hit the authoritative servers. Kind Regards, Michael Shuler |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: NXDOMAIN Negative TTL, Andy Bradford |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Parejas y Amigos, parejas encuentros |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: NXDOMAIN Negative TTL, Andy Bradford |
| Next by Thread: | Parejas y Amigos, parejas encuentros |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |