On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:54:05 am W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote: > From your data they waited for one day. Could it be this that > triggered the complaint? Different way of keeping the cache and the old > servers still serving the old zone, turns the TTL until the new data is > displayed larger than the one day they expected? (or did they expect > even faster convergence, even though they used a 24h TTL?) > "they waited for one day" referred to one of our staff members who was handling the report. Our staff member did a dig, waited 24 hours and did the same dig against the same resolvers and still received incorrect information. It's almost as if unbound was still caching the old delegation. -- Haw Loeung Systems Administrator TPG Internet http://www.tpg.com.au _______________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 490 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://unbound.nlnetlabs.nl/pipermail/unbound-users/attachments/20091109/cb566cd6/attachment.pgp>