Am 09.02.2018 um 17:45 schrieb Barry Margolin:
In article <>,
  Reindl Harald <> 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poor performance when they try to go to these sites using out-of-date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

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 to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list

Reply via email to