Am 09.02.2018 um 17:45 schrieb Barry Margolin:
In article <[email protected]>,
Reindl Harald <[email protected]> wrote:
As long as you understand the implications of what you're doing?
The zone owner may be using short TTLs to implement load balancing
and/or quick failover. If you extend the TTLs, your users may experience
poor performance when they try to go to these sites using out-of-date
cache entries
but that's my problem then and not yours - it's that simple
Sure, but the Internet was designed on a philosophy of cooperation. An
ISP could also drop every other packet, and say "that's my problem, not
yours", but we wouldn't consider that to be a reasonable way to run a
network.
IMHO you should at least be transparent about it, so your users know
what they're in for
where i would place that option "my users" are my servers (inbound MX,
RBL's hence unbound there, but you would know that if you would have
followed the thread)
another usecase are 5 seconds or so to mask problems of the zone-owner
where all his slaves are victims of Cisco hardware and mangle CNAMEs in
zone-transfers with a "$TLL 0" in front of them while the whole domain
was intened to have a global 86400 seconds TTL
one needs me to show a single example where human users would have a
non-theoretical differnece between 2 and 5 seconds..
but you would also know that if you have followed the thread
_______________________________________________
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
