Variations on lame delegations (terminology question)
Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Sun Oct 26 05:35:59 UTC 2003
>
> >>> They are all lame delegations.
> >>
> >>hmm but for some reasons, isc bind lame-ttl option has a different
> >>opinion, and considers server to be lame only in the first case :-(,
> >
> >
> > Well the second case you can't tell the difference between
> > that and a nameserver that is down which is how it is
> > treated.
>
> do i really need to know?, what is the point using incredible system
> resources of a bind recursive server, just to follow up with servers,
> which are apperantly down, and everybody except the bind itself has
> figured it out.
Named penalises the rtt estimates of nameservers that are down.
> Ladislav
>
> >
> > The third case can be detected and the servers are ignored.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >>Ladislav
> >>
> >>
> >>>--
> >>>Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
> >>>1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> >>>PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews at isc.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews at isc.org
> >
>
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews at isc.org
More information about the bind-users
mailing list