In message <[email protected]>, "Darcy Kevin (FCA)" writes: > "many client have caused a burst DNS traffic" is not much of a problem > statement, honestly. > > What does this patch add, of value, that isn't already covered by > "max-cache-ttl"? > > If you're trying to allow the operators of intermediate resolvers to > override the intentions of the data owner, by enforcing a *minimum* TTL, > then I have to say that's a really bad idea. The data owner sets their > TTL for a reason, and if it's low, it's probably because the > infrastructure is very dynamic. Forcing data to be kept after the data > owners' TTL, risks keeping "stale" data in the client, and this will > likely have a negative impact on the user experience. It might even have > security implications, because maybe that resource (e.g. IP address) > isn't trusted any more. You don't want clients connecting to an untrusted > resource, do you? Who would have legal or criminal liability, if that > happened? > > - Kevin
The problem is when you have a million clients each with a local cache they all expire the record simultaniously and if it is a popular address then you get a million DNS queries in the second after the ttl has expired as all those local caches refresh. This is a attempt to distribute the query load from those caches uniformly rather than have a peak load every ttl seconds. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
