Dan Ritter wrote: > Tom Metro wrote: >> Dan Ritter wrote: >>> The sole downside to this arrangement is that it can often take half >>> a day to get an old DNS record changed -- new records go through much >>> faster. >> That's due to your default TTL, right? But if you were anticipating a >> change, you could use the common technique of dropping the TTL in >> advance, so when the change did happen, it would propagate quickly. > > Actually, no. > > When a request comes in for a known domain name, the secondary > server knows the answer authoritatively and sends the response.
Ah, right. The caching algorithm isn't applicable to an authoritative servers. > The secondary server updates via a zone transfer, done every N > hours on their side, or we can trigger one manually (for one of > our providers, but not the other). So I gather N is something like 4 hours, if it can take up to a half (work) day? Care to recommend your secondary providers (either publicly or privately)? -Tom -- Tom Metro Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA "Enterprise solutions through open source." Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/ _______________________________________________ bblisa mailing list [email protected] http://www.bblisa.org/mailman/listinfo/bblisa
