Niall O Broin wrote:
>>On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 11:13, AJ McKee wrote:
>>>>>Now when I update the record it comes across fine on a network that I have
>>>never used to access the network, but when I use eircom the old record is
>>>still shown and the new one does not take over despite the max and min ttl
>>>being set quite low.
>>>>> Hmm - my read on that, and IANABE, is that the server you're querying is not
> respecting the TTL you've specified. I just had a quick look at the cricket
> and the exact words used are "it will have to remove the entry from its
> cache after an hour" when talking about a server outside your domain where
> you have the TTL set to 3600. So this leads me to the conclusion that the
> Eircom server is behaving incorrectly. Why do I not find this surprising ?
I've noticed this before, in cases where I know the TTL and Eircom has never
had anything to do with the DNS records. It grabs a record and hangs onto it
like grim death, way past the TTL.
It also caches negative lookups for a stupidly long period of time. So, when
you're testing new domain entries, get it right first time or get ready for a
looong wait with Eircom's servers.
Vin
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
