On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:12:34PM -0500, Steve Crocker <st...@shinkuro.com> wrote a message of 41 lines which said:
> Shortening TTLs increases the amount of traffic between the recursive > resolvers and authoritative resolvers and lengthens the response time for > some queries. However, I don’t think there is any service guarantee with > respect to an individual query that is violated by shortening the TTL. > > Lengthening a TTL, on the other hand, does change one of the service > guarantees. When there is a change in the entry in the authoritative server, > what is the maximum time until that change is guaranteed to be propagated > throughout the net? This depends primarily on the TTL. However, when the > TTL is lengthened by the recursive resolvers, the upper bound for propagation > of a change is similarly increased. I fully agree about this very important difference (which is completely missing in the RIPE Labs article). Lengthening the TTL is a protocol violation (otherwise, we wouldn't discuss about draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale). Shortening it systematically is bad manners, and is selfish but is not a protocol violation. We should not discuss the two in the same thread: they are very different practices. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
