bind-9.3.2-33.fc5

[Wael Shaheen]

Hello, Barry

On 9/22/06, Barry Margolin <barmar at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> In article <eeu92l$1kbe$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
> "Shaheen" <wael.shaheen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > >     These will almost always be the result of a bad delegation.
> >
> > What do yuo mean by bad delegation? the domains am trying to resolve
> > are not hosted on my servers, they are external domains.
>
> He means that there's some mismatch between the way that the domain is
> delegated and the actual configuration of the servers it's delegated to.
> It's not your problem, it's a problem with those external domains --
> their DNS administrators have screwed up in some way.



Ok I understand but why does it resolve just fine after restarting the named
daemon? if it is an issue form outside my network why does it occur only
within it? i mean other DNS servers at other places can resolve just fine.

> > > 3- Some records are cached even though TTL is expired.
> > >
> > >     You are confused.  Named will not return a expired record.
> >
> > I also have internal DNS server the same version and let me give you an
> > example about what happened.
> > example.com = 1.1.1.1 then changed to 2.2.2.2
> > from internal DNSexample.com resolves to 2.2.2.2, but External DNS
> > still resolves to 1.1.1.1
> > when i restart the daemon or rndc flush it starts resolving to 2.2.2.2
>
> That means that the TTL of the old record hasn't expired yet.  What was
> the TTL of the 1.1.1.1 record, and how long did you wait after changing
> it?


--
Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***