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
> > 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, if I recall correctly) is permitted by

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 resp

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&#

servfail are not cached!

2011-09-27 Thread Issam Harrathi
I discover that servfail are not cached. is it normal? explanation: I have a cache-recursing server and i try www.blabla.com (which exist) and then i stop the dns server of www.blabla.com. Then (after ttl expired) from my cache-recusing server i try dig @0 www.blabla.com and i receive a servfail