No subject

"Note that setting recursion no does not prevent clients from getting data
from the server's cache; it only prevents new data from being cached as an
effect of client queries"


specifically:
To barry's email saying that allow-query-cache now did what allow-recursion
was thought to do, you said "recursion no" did this. It does not, as clearly
stated in the ARM excerpt above. Yes it seems cleaner, but no it doesn't
work.

In 9.3 if you wanted this behaviour you could use allow-query with acls as
many default bind configs will in fact do. But "recursion no" doesn't
replicate this behaviour. To my reading of the ARM (9.3 and 9.4) and
experience with BIND it appears fairly clear cut.

As to your experiment, perhaps you could include the full named.conf if you
feel its genuinely possible to block the querying of the cache with
"recursion no".




On 22/6/07 1:38 PM, "Clenna Lumina" <savagebeaste at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Kal Feher wrote:
>> The allow-query behaviour changed with 9.4
>> Allow-query-cache was added and is specific to the cache.
>> I note you tested on 9.3, I dont believe the statement
>> allow-query-cache was available on that release, hence your counter
>> intuitive results.
> 
> How are my results counter-intuitive? They were exactly as expected and
> with one line of code (per view.)
> 
> You really avoided my question too. My examples (below, quoted)
> demonstrate that the "recursion: no;" does stop cached queries as well,
> so this seems for cleaner that having allow-query and allow-query-cache
> at the same time.
> 
> And before you say it, yes, "recursion: " is different as it doesn't use
> ACLs, unless you count "match-clients: " (ie, in a "view"), so it can be
> used in virtually the same way as allow-query[-cache] with out having to
> use two statements.
> 
> I just want to know what is so wrong with my aproach?

-- 
Kal Feher