From: Niall O Broin (niall at domain linux.ie)
Date: Thu 11 Apr 2002 - 14:49:33 IST
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 02:27:32PM +0100, Nick Murtagh wrote:
> That's what it does. It the server knows about the A record, it might return
> that as well. It's not the only aspect of DNS that's dumb. I want a way to
> invalidate the caches for records that get updated :)
Why that's easy - you just gradually reduce the TTL of the record, so that N
time units before the planned change, the TTL is reduced to < N time units.
Oh - sorry - you want something to cope with improperly planned changes ? :-)
And of course the happy notion above doesn't work when you have brain dead
caches (Eircon springs to mind - didn't someone mention such a problem with
Eircon caches recently ?)
Niall
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:16:00 GMT