<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Chrome DNS Caching</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.ultranurd.net/2009/01/22/chrome-dns-caching/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.ultranurd.net/2009/01/22/chrome-dns-caching/</link>
	<description>Collected Commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:16:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Lenz</title>
		<link>http://blog.ultranurd.net/2009/01/22/chrome-dns-caching/comment-page-1/#comment-6577</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Lenz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 03:41:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ultranurd.net/?p=494#comment-6577</guid>
		<description>I had to clear browsing data. (Wrench, options, under the hood)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had to clear browsing data. (Wrench, options, under the hood)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Crosta</title>
		<link>http://blog.ultranurd.net/2009/01/22/chrome-dns-caching/comment-page-1/#comment-1720</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Crosta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:37:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ultranurd.net/?p=494#comment-1720</guid>
		<description>In fact, many browsers cache DNS information, though not usually for more than a browsing session, as a way to reduce the number of DNS request they have to make. (Why the browsers cache this, rather than letting the system cache it, or why they don&#039;t obey the TTLs on DNS records is beyond me.)

Andrew and I were looking into this the other day when learning about DNS SRV records, and whether it would be possible to have an SRV specify that HTTP should be reached on a port other than 80. Turns out the DNS protocol supports it, but no major browsers query SRVs. I suspect as a consequence, most sites do not list _tcp._http in their DNS SRV (because nobody asks for it). Chicken, meet egg.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In fact, many browsers cache DNS information, though not usually for more than a browsing session, as a way to reduce the number of DNS request they have to make. (Why the browsers cache this, rather than letting the system cache it, or why they don&#8217;t obey the TTLs on DNS records is beyond me.)</p>
<p>Andrew and I were looking into this the other day when learning about DNS SRV records, and whether it would be possible to have an SRV specify that HTTP should be reached on a port other than 80. Turns out the DNS protocol supports it, but no major browsers query SRVs. I suspect as a consequence, most sites do not list _tcp._http in their DNS SRV (because nobody asks for it). Chicken, meet egg.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->
