question about caching of lame servers
klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at
Wed Oct 18 06:40:22 UTC 2006
Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <eh44qj$1bi1$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
> Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> 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.
Are you talking about an existing feature or how it should be?
More information about the bind-users