Re: servfail are not cached!

2011-09-28 Thread Issam Harrathi
Thanks. 2011/9/27 Jan-Piet Mens > On Tue Sep 27 2011 at 17:32:22 CEST, Issam Harrathi wrote: > > > and you say here it's cached for 30 seconds?! > > Evan said: > > > and we've discussed implementing it in BIND9, but haven't had time yet. > > In other words, they are *not* cached in BIND9. > >

Re: servfail are not cached!

2011-09-27 Thread Jan-Piet Mens
On Tue Sep 27 2011 at 17:32:22 CEST, Issam Harrathi wrote: > and you say here it's cached for 30 seconds?! Evan said: > and we've discussed implementing it in BIND9, but haven't had time yet. In other words, they are *not* cached in BIND9. -JP __

Re: servfail are not cached!

2011-09-27 Thread Ben Croswell
Actually he said the DNS protocol allows for it and ISC had been considering adding it. -Ben Croswell On Sep 27, 2011 11:38 AM, "Issam Harrathi" wrote: > As i test it's not cached at all, and you say here it's cached for 30 > seconds?! > i'm using 9.7.2-P3. > > 2011/9/27 Evan Hunt > >> > I disco

Re: servfail are not cached!

2011-09-27 Thread Issam Harrathi
As i test it's not cached at all, and you say here it's cached for 30 seconds?! i'm using 9.7.2-P3. 2011/9/27 Evan Hunt > > I discover that servfail are not cached. is it normal? > > Yes, that's normal. > > Temporary negative caching of SERVFAIL responses for a limited period (up > to 30 seconds

Re: servfail are not cached!

2011-09-27 Thread Evan Hunt
> I discover that servfail are not cached. is it normal? Yes, that's normal. Temporary negative caching of SERVFAIL responses for a limited period (up to 30 seconds, if I recall correctly) is permitted by the DNS protocol, and we've discussed implementing it in BIND9, but haven't had time yet. -