They’re probably matching about 40% of the time on twitter.com, though 😒 > On 25 Nov 2015, at 11:40 AM, Dan Charlesworth <dan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Alright, thanks for the hint. > > My proxy and clients definitely have the same DNS server (I removed the secondary and tertiary ones to make totally sure) but the results definitely aren’t matching 99% of the time. Probably more like 90%. > > Perhaps it’s 'cause my clients are caching records locally or something? It does seem to improve as the day progresses, after joining the intercepted wifi network in the morning. > > Super annoying though trying to post a comment on GitHub or something and it just hangs. > >> On 25 Nov 2015, at 11:19 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 25/11/2015 12:20 p.m., Dan Charlesworth wrote: >>> Thanks for the perspective on this, folks. >>> >>> Going back to the technical stuff—and this isn’t really a squid thing—but is there any way I can minimise this using my DNS server? >>> >>> Can I force my local DNS to only ever return 1 address from the pool on a hostname I’m having trouble with? >> >> That depends on your resolver, but I doubt it. >> >> The DNS setup I mentioned in my last email to this thread is all I'm >> aware of that gets even close to a fix. >> >> Note that you may have to intercept clients port 53 traffic (both UDP >> and TCP) to the resolver. That has implications with DNSSEC but should >> still work as long as you do not alter the DNS responses, the resolver >> is just there to ensure the same result goes to both querying parties. >> >> Amos >> >> _______________________________________________ >> squid-users mailing list >> squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users > _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
