NS record TTL versus nameserver's A record TTL
Matus UHLAR - fantomas
uhlar at fantomas.sk
Tue Oct 8 18:37:41 UTC 2013
On 08.10.13 11:49, John Wobus wrote:
>We received a report that a domain we serve
>was not resolving at a remote site. The site
>also reported their own analysis that the issue
>appeared to be that the domain's NS record had
>a longer TTL than its target nameserver's
>A record and their caching server didn't
>seem able to handle this. FYI, the nameserver
>was not within the domain with the issue.
it's hard to say from this information. Maybe if you provided concrete
domain name(s) we could tell more.
>They took responsibility for their
>nameserver's deficiency, but it
>makes me wonder:
>-Is this addressed by a standard? E.g.,
> the nameserver's A record have the same
> TTL as NS records pointing at it.
It should be the same, when the server is in the domain. I met exactly
those issues when NS record had longer ttl then the A record in the same
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Micro$oft random number generator: 0, 0, 0, 4.33e+67, 0, 0, 0...
More information about the bind-users