Re: dig ignores +notcp when doing IXFR (DiG 9.5.0-P2)

2013-12-06 Thread Matthew Pounsett
On 2013-12-06, at 12:11 , Chris Thompson wrote: > > The sense in which BIND "forces use of TCP" is that when it gets an > IXFR request over UDP, it always just replies with the current SOA. > It doesn't bother to work out whether an incremental transfer is > possible and if so whether it would

Re: dig ignores +notcp when doing IXFR (DiG 9.5.0-P2)

2013-12-06 Thread Chris Thompson
On Dec 5 2013, Matthew Pounsett wrote: On 2013-12-05, at 01:37 , Mark Andrews wrote: Note, named will for the use of TCP in its UDP response. s/for/force/ Always? Regardless of response size? Interesting. What's the rationale for doing it that way? Just to clarify, RFC 1995

Re: CNAME and TTL

2013-12-06 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 06.12.13 15:52, sumsum 2000 wrote: I am having only a forward only option in bind configuration. When i dig on some host which has CNAME, the cache contains a longer TTL for the CNAME than the TTL for the final resolution of the IP. Yes, every record has its own TTL, including every record

CNAME and TTL

2013-12-06 Thread sumsum 2000
Hi, I am having only a forward only option in bind configuration. When i dig on some host which has CNAME, the cache contains a longer TTL for the CNAME than the TTL for the final resolution of the IP. However, in the example below, the CNAME is queried again when the TTL for a336.g.akamai.net