On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 07:33:45PM -0700,
Stephen Satchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
The last time I renumbered, I found that quite a few people were not
honoring the TTLs I put in my DNS zone files. [...] Custom customer
zone files hosted elsewhere?
Do not
On 4-jun-2007, at 4:33, Stephen Satchell wrote:
The last time I renumbered, I found that quite a few people were
not honoring the TTLs I put in my DNS zone files. I would clone
the new address and monitor traffic to the old address -- and it
took up to seven days for the traffic to the
The last time I renumbered, I found that quite a few people were not
honoring the TTLs I put in my DNS zone files. [...] Custom customer
zone files hosted elsewhere?
Do not forget that applications have their own caches, too, and they
typically ignore completely the DNS TTL. A typical Web
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jun 3, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Simon Leinen wrote:
You write when rather than if - is ignoring reasonable TTLs
current practice?
Definitely. We've seen 15 minute TTLs regularly go 48 hours without
updating on Cox or Comcast's name servers. I
You write when rather than if - is ignoring reasonable TTLs
current practice?
Definitely. We've seen 15 minute TTLs regularly go 48 hours without
updating on Cox or Comcast's name servers. I believe the most I've seen
was 8 days (Cox).
i wish all my competitors did that.
randy
Chris Owen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jun 3, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Simon Leinen wrote:
You write when rather than if - is ignoring reasonable TTLs
current practice?
Definitely. We've seen 15 minute TTLs regularly go 48 hours without
updating on Cox or Comcast's
You write when rather than if - is ignoring reasonable TTLs
current practice?
Definitely. We've seen 15 minute TTLs regularly go 48 hours without updating
on Cox or Comcast's name servers. I believe the most I've seen was 8 days
(Cox).
I definitely meant when not if. And Cox is by no
Cisco has a whitepaper entitled Enabling Enterprise Multihoming with Cisco
IOS NAT that addresses this. See
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk361/technologies_white_paper09186a0080091c8a.shtml
as well as RFC2260.
see also http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/proxynet.pdf.
There are indeed a
