[ILUG] More DNS

[Vincent Cunniffe]

Niall O Broin wrote:
>>On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 11:13, AJ McKee wrote:
>>
>>>Now when I update the record it comes across fine on a network that I have
>>>never used to access the network, but when I use eircom the old record is
>>>still shown and the new one does not take over despite the max and min ttl
>>>being set quite low.
>>>
> 
> Hmm - my read on that, and IANABE, is that the server you're querying is not
> respecting the TTL you've specified. I just had a quick look at the cricket
> and the exact words used are "it will have to remove the entry from its
> cache after an hour" when talking about a server outside your domain where
> you have the TTL set to 3600. So this leads me to the conclusion that the
> Eircom server is behaving incorrectly. Why do I not find this surprising ?

I've noticed this before, in cases where I know the TTL and Eircom has never
had anything to do with the DNS records. It grabs a record and hangs onto it
like grim death, way past the TTL.

It also caches negative lookups for a stupidly long period of time. So, when
you're testing new domain entries, get it right first time or get ready for a
looong wait with Eircom's servers.

Vin