On 01/15/2013 12:18 AM, W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote: > Hi Jay, > > On 01/14/2013 09:31 PM, Jay Deiman wrote: >> I've written some code based on the ttl modification code here: > >> http://www.unbound.net/documentation/pythonmod/examples/example3.html > >> I'm noticing an odd behavior that seems like it may be a bug. I >> was doing some testing and found that my responses that I get back >> from unbound for the modified TTLs seem to be correct, but the >> cached entries don't expire when the TTL reaches zero. > > > The cache entry itself, the message, has its own TTL (usually the > minimum of the TTLs of the RRs but you broke that assumption with your > code), you are adjusting the TTL of the RRs, but not the TTL of the > message. This is causing your strange observations.
So, is the only way to modify the TTL of the stored message to instantiate a new DNSMessage and use that as my response, which has a massive performance penalty, or is there another way? Thanks, Jay _______________________________________________ Unbound-users mailing list [email protected] http://unbound.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/unbound-users
