bind-9.3.2-33.fc5

[Barry Margolin]

In article <ef1085$1p57$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
 "Wael Shaheen" <wael.shaheen at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

The first time named accesses a domain, it uses the information in the 
delegation to find the authoritative servers.  The authoritative servers 
often include their version of the NS records in the response, and this 
then gets cached in its place.  These records may cause problems later 
when the TTL of the original delegation expires -- for instance, there 
may not be any glue records for them.

> 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.

That's harder to explain.  Sometimes it's a timing issue, other times 
it's due to the version of BIND being used.

-- 
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 ***