On June 18, 2004 12:49 am, Nate Duehr wrote: > No, this isn't right. �You must lower the TTL time at a bare minimum 2 * > (Current TTL) ahead of time. �Why? �Because nameservers out in the real > world will not even query your nameservers again until the TTL has > expired, meaning that if you change it today, the FIRST time another > nameserver that has already cached your records will ask for it again is > after the *current* TTL expires. �Now take the case where one nameserver > is a forwarder for another (rare, but there are environments where it's > needed) and the one behind the forwarder could take up to 2 * TTL to > come ask for new information.
Can you explain that a little further? If my nameserver caches a record with TTL 86400, and someone asks for it again an hour later I hand them the record from my cache using TTL 82800 (not 86400). This is certainly what bind does, if other caching nameservers do it differently then it's a bug IMHO. I would be very surprised if it is different when DNS queries are being forward from one DNS server to another. Or did you mean something else? -- Fraser Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wehave.net/ Georgetown, Ontario, Canada Debian GNU/Linux