cbuxton at menandmice.com
Tue Oct 16 16:38:12 UTC 2007
This sounds more like a stale delegation problem than a caching problem.
When you retired the server, did you notify your zones' parents? For
example, if the server hosted the zone mcmaster.ca, did you notify
the registrar for .ca?
Men & Mice
Address: Noatun 17, IS-105, Reykjavik, Iceland
Phone: +354 412 1500
Email: cbuxton at menandmice.com
Men & Mice
We bring control and flexibility to network management
This e-mail and its attachments may contain confidential and
privileged information only intended for the person or entity to
which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention,
dissemination, distribution or copy of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
us immediately by reply e-mail and immediately delete this message
and all its attachment.
On Oct 16, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Mike Diggins wrote:
> What dictates how long another name server caches the authoritative
> server for a domain? I was under the impression it was the default
> time-to-live, but I have a situation where an authoritative name
> was removed from service several days ago, yet queries to it
> continue. Dig
> is correctly reporting the new authoritative name servers for the
> in question. How common is it for DNS servers to ignore the ttl?
More information about the bind-users