Is it valid to put an explicit TTL in an SOA record?
My SOA looks like (explicit TTL of 10 hours):
@ 36000 IN SOA ns.lannet.com.au. root.lannet.com.au. (
2001011900 ; serial
36000 ; refresh
3600 ; retry
3600000 ; expire
360000 ; default_ttl
)
but when I do a reload I get this error message:
Jan 19 05:12:14 keep named[343]: Zone "lannet.com.au" (file named.hosts):
No default TTL set using SOA minimum instead
Jan 19 05:12:14 keep named[343]: master zone "lannet.com.au" (IN) loaded
(serial 2001011900)
and when I look at the SOA using dig I get (explicit TTL of 100 hours):
lannet.com.au. 4d4h IN SOA ns.lannet.com.au.
root.lannet.com.au. (
2001011900 ; serial
10H ; refresh
1H ; retry
5w6d16h ; expiry
4d4h ) ; minimum
However, the record that is saved by the slave DNS shows the correct TTL
on the SOA record.
I notice in the examples in the DNS & BIND book that they don't show an
explicit TTL on the SOA record.
WTFG?
--
Howard.
____________________________________________________
LANNet Computing Associates <http://lannetlinux.com>
"...well, it worked before _you_ touched it!"
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
