Hi David, On Tue Dec 30 18:17:51 2014 GMT+0100, David C Lawrence wrote: > Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: > > Yes, that clearly violates the TTL of the rrset, but wouldn't be > > over-all better for the health of the internet? > > Paul Vixie wrote: > > no. sometimes the old value is dangerous (private; load; loss) to the > > person who changed it. > > On the other hand, since implementing it in our own local resolvers I > can tell you that the feature has absolutely averted customer > incidents, and never once caused one by using stale data. > > Thus personally I would say that the answer to Colm's question is a > qualified yes. I don't disagree with you about there being > problematic cases, but if we had let the perfect be the enemy of the > good we wouldn't even have the practical Internet and the World Wide > Web today. On balance to me the feature is "over-all better" for DNS > resilience.
I strongly agree with you. Though it's not perfect (as pointed out by Paul), I believe it has more benefits than side/bad effects. It could be a tool offered to DNS operators, and leave them the choice to use it or not. -- Nicolas Cartron _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
