wael.shaheen at gmail.com
Fri Sep 22 14:34:06 UTC 2006
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 = 188.8.131.52 then changed to 184.108.40.206
> > from internal DNSexample.com resolves to 220.127.116.11, but External DNS
> > still resolves to 18.104.22.168
> > when i restart the daemon or rndc flush it starts resolving to 22.214.171.124
> That means that the TTL of the old record hasn't expired yet. What was
> the TTL of the 126.96.36.199 record, and how long did you wait after changing
Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
More information about the bind-users