> > Well it is lame. Notice it is returning a referral to itself.

>
> Mark,
> Roger that. Investigating that further on my part reveals that to be the
> case, as you said.
>
> > I suspect you issued a *recursive* query. Given they running
> > BIND 8.3.3-REL-NOESW this recursed and returned the answer
> > it was given (note the "aa" flag) and cached it. Subsequent
> > queries return the cached answer (note there is no "aa"
> > flag).

>
> Yes, I was not setting "+norec" on my test queries, so this behavior is
> accurate. What is the exact significance of BIND 8.3.3-REL-NOESW; does
> BIND 9 behave differently in this case (noting that these ordb servers
> are open recursives, which I've contacted them about)?
>
> >> Downgrading to BIND 9.3.2-P1 causes these messages to go away.
> >>
> >> Could this be a bug with BIND? Is BIND being more sensitive to lame
> >> delegations in more recent versions? Best as we can tell, ordb.org is not
> >> having any problems problems with the zone.

>
> Not a bug.
>
> What is the different between 9.3.2-P1 and 9.4.0b2 that causes the
> difference in how this situation is logged?


1880. [func] The lame cache is now done on a
basis as some servers only appear to be lame for
certain query types. [RT #14916]

The old code tried to identify the domain, which has false positives
when there are multiple levels of the heirachy on the same server.

It was also not type sensitive.

> Thanks for the great explaination!
>
> Tom Daly
>
> --
> Thomas J. Daly
> tom@dyndns.com
> Dynamic Network Services, Inc.
> http://www.dyndns.com/
>
>

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