On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 11:23 -0400, Josh Littlefield wrote: > Confirming, RFC 2308 makes it clear that the negative caching of all > records for a zone is limited to the minimum of the SOA TTL and the SOA > "minimum" TTL field (which was given this new negative caching TTL role > in RFC 2308).
It's not clear to me why the lesser of the two is taken, or indeed why they have a relationship at all. What is the rationale there? Why not just use the minimum TTL as the negative cache TTL? Having read the history in RFC2308, I suspect it is because the minimum TTL has had a few meanings over time, and was often set far too high, so the SOA TTL is being used to "sanity check" it, as even a feral zone administrator will not want too high a value in the SOA TTL. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer ([email protected]) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156 Old fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
