-----Original Message-----
From: Mark_Andrews@isc.org [mailto:Mark_Andrews@isc.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 1:55 PM
To: Smith, William E. (Bill), Jr.
Cc: bind-users@isc.org
Subject: Re: Strange / Frustrating Caching Problems


> For the past few months, I have been trying to resolve (unsuccessfully


> to thi s point) with a trio of caching only name servers that we have


> in place. Th e general nature of the problem is as follows. A dhcp
> client originally gets an IP address on subnet A but at some point
> prior to lease expiration moves to subnet B, where they obtain a new
> IP address successfully. The problem th at I am seeing is that after
> the move to subnet B, one or more of our caching only name servers
> are still returning the old IP address when a lookup of th e hostname
> occurs. This behavior seems reasonable at first glance since cach ing


> only servers should retain the information they have in cache until
> the T TL expires and/or the cache is flushed. After digging into this


> further, I'm finding that that the TTL for the hosts whose forward

lookups are returning the wrong IP are set to 604800 seconds or 168
hours. I've determined this by
> dumping / viewing the cache. In addition, I've also discovered
> that the TTL for the reverse record for the same client is also set
> to this high value. This behavior would seem reasonable if this high
> value was the T TL value configured for the domain, which is not the
> case here. We have the default TTL in our environment set for 10800
> seconds or 4 hours. Thus, I'm a little baffled as to why the TTL for


> some of these DHCP clients are being se t to such a high value when
> other clients have their TTL's set to the 10800 v alue configured at
> the domain level. I've checked the registration at the ob ject level
> (in our IP management application) and the TTL field is blank, thu s

implying the default TTL is in place.
> Aside from the above details, I can also note that the problematic
> lookups se em to involve the same DHCP clients. The only reason I
> know about these clie nts is that they are unable to SSH to some Unix
> boxes in a DMZ that restrict access to hosts that they can perform

both forward and reverse lookups for.
> In this scenario, the forward lookup is failing since it's returning
> the old IP address of the client. When this problem occurs, it tends
> to affect one o r two of the caching servers but not all three.
> Furthermore, it is somewhat random as to which of the 3 servers are

affected.
>
> The caching servers in question are all Solaris 9 running BIND 9.3.2
>
> If anyone can provide some insight here, it would be much appreciated.


> I can provide additional information and/or elaborate on something as

needed.
>
> Bill Smith
>
> ISS Server Systems Group
> Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory 11100 Johns
> Hopkins Road Laurel, MD 20723
> Phone: 443-778-5523
> Web: http://www.jhuapl.edu


Nameservers do what the dhcp servers tell them to do. The TTL
is set by the DHCP server. Try lowering the dhcp lease time as
that influences the DNS TTL.


This is intersting then. We have roughly 10,000 DHCP clients in total
here with only a small handful exhibiting this high TTL value. The
handful could certainly be more that I simply don't know about but I
would have expected to hear of similar problems from other users. In
addition, the same template (of IP settings) is being applied to the
"problematic" clients as others whose TTL's are fine. If the behavior
is a by-product of the lease time, why would we not be seeing this
behavior on a larger number of clients? Our standard lease time here is
14 days and has been for some time. It has only been within the last
few months that I've been made aware of the noted problem. That said,
best practice seems to dictate that RR TTL for DHCP clietns should not
exceed 1/3 the lease time, which would not be the case here (right at
bout 50% in some cases). All this aside though, is there any DHCP
option available to more tightly control the TTL value or is this
something that should be configurable at a more global level? I may
also follow-up with the vendor of my IP Management product since I'm
using their DHCP server.

Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org