negative caching ttl question

Veaceslav Revutchi slavarevutchi at
Wed Oct 14 00:26:01 UTC 2020

Thank you, Tony. You're right.

I do see a difference in behavior when querying other authoritative,
non-AWS servers. I didn't realize it was the job of the authoritative
server to do the math and present the proper ttl. Thanks for the
pointer to the relevant section in the rfc.


On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:34 PM Tony Finch <dot at> wrote:
> Veaceslav Revutchi <slavarevutchi at> wrote:
> > Given this soa:
> >
> > 3600 IN SOA
> > 1 7200 900 1209600 60
> >
> > I see bind caching negative answers for 3600 instead of 60. The rfc
> > and my google searches suggest that it should pick the MIN(soa ttl,
> > soa min ttl) for that purpose. What am I missing?
> I think what RFC 2308 says (sections 3 and 5) the authoritative server for
> the zone is responsible for calculating the negative TTL from the minimum
> of the SOA TTL and MINIMUM fields. Sections 5 and 6 say that resolvers and
> caches propagate the negative TTL using just the TTL field of the SOA in
> the AUTHORITY section of the response (though the RFC could be a little
> more explicit about this).
> What's happening for is the AWS DNS authoritative servers are
> setting the wrong TTL in the negative response, and your BIND cache is
> doing what it is told to do.
> Tony.
> --
> f.anthony.n.finch  <dot at>
> Ardnamurchan Point to Cape Wrath: Northeast 5 or 6, veering east 3 or 4 later.
> Rough becoming moderate. Showers. Good, occasionally moderate.

More information about the bind-users mailing list