On 20/09/2022 23:54, Glenn Fowler wrote:
Hi,

I am caching positive responses for 40 minutes (min-cache-ttl), but want negative responses cached for only 1 minute. If the forward zone server is down momentarily, all of the queries during that time could result in an erroneous negative response that gets cached for 40 minutes and unreachable during that time instead of the desired 1 minute.

This is not the case: you need to distinguish between a reply which says "this domain/RR does not exist" and no response or an error from the server. The later is never cached. If the forward zone server is down it can't answer and so can't put anything in the cache.


With neg-ttl working as expected, a retry after the 1 minute mark would result in a positive response.

See above, in this case there will be error responses until the upstream server recovers.


In general, negative responses shouldn't have a high TTL.

neg-ttl is only a fall-back should a negative response not contain TTL information, so making it override min-cache-ttl won't affect the normal case where negative repliues have an SOA record which specifies the TTL.

There might be an argument for not making min-cache-ttl apply to negative caching, but I'm not sure that makes sense. min-cache-ttl is a dangerous option which comes with caveats anyway, if it breaks stuff, just switch it off.

Simon.


On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 4:59 PM Geert Stappers via Dnsmasq-discuss <dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk <mailto:dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk>> wrote:

    On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 10:41:29AM -0400, Glenn Fowler wrote:
     > Hello,
     >
     > I have observed that if min-cache-ttl time is greater than
    neg-ttl time,
     > then the neg-ttl time is ignored and negative responses are
    cached at the
     > min-cache-ttl time.
     >
     > The expected behavior should be that neg-ttl is independent of
     > min-cache-ttl.

    What are the negative effects of it?   (a.k.a. With which priority needs
    it further attention?)


     > In searching I did find that unbound had the exact same issue:
     > https://github.com/NLnetLabs/unbound/issues/533
    <https://github.com/NLnetLabs/unbound/issues/533>
     >
     > I am on v2.86 on OpenWrt
     >
     > Thank you

    Thanks for what?


    Groeten
    Geert Stappers
-- Silence is hard to parse

    _______________________________________________
    Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
    Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
    <mailto:Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk>
    https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
    <https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss>


_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

Reply via email to