In article <mailman.441.1518125799.749.bind-us...@lists.isc.org>,
Grant Taylor <gtay...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> On 02/08/2018 08:51 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> > Also, just for argument's sake, one user wants to extend TTLs to
> > 5s. Another wants 60s TTLs. What is OK and what is going too far?
> I think what is "OK" is up to each administrator.
> Obviously the zone administrators have decided that they want people to
> use the 2s TTL.
> That being said, it is up to each individual recursive server operator
> if they want to honor what the zone administrators have published, or if
> the recursive administrators want to override published desires.
> > It really is something for the zone owner to consider.
> Yes and no. Yes it's up to the zone owner to consider what intentions
> that they want to publish. No, the zone owner has no influence on how I
> operate my servers. I choose how I operate my servers.
> If I choose to operate my servers in a manner that ignores the zone
> owner's published desires, that's on me.
> I feel like this discussion is really two issues: 1) Does the
> capability to override published values and 2) should I use said
> capability. They really are two different questions. I personally
> would like to see BIND have the option to do #1, even if I never use it.
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poor performance when they try to go to these sites using out-of-date
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list