question about caching of lame servers

Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists at
Wed Oct 18 06:40:22 UTC 2006

Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <eh44qj$1bi1$1 at>,
>  Kevin Darcy <kcd at> wrote:
>> Klaus Darilion wrote:
>>> That gives faster timeouts - but I want to get rid of timeouts 
>>> completely - of course the first lookup will time out, but the name 
>>> servers should be marked as down for some time and sequential lookups 
>>> should be avoided.
>> I think you're setting yourself for a very fragile and fickle lookup 
>> subsystem, since we're talking primarily about an unreliable protocol 
>> (UDP) being used over long-distance networks with varying latencies. 
>> Packet delays and drops are commonplace.
> But BIND already retries the original queries.  If all the queries to 
> all the nameservers for a domain fail, it's unlikely to be due to 
> transient problems like this.
> And the cached down state would presumably have a reasonable timeout 
> (which could be configured in named.conf, of course), so the failure 
> shouldn't produce serious problems.

Hi Barry!

Are you talking about an existing feature or how it should be?


More information about the bind-users mailing list