On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 9:09 PM Lukas Tribus <li...@ltri.eu> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:00 AM rihad <ri...@mail.ru> wrote:
> >
> > BTW, all these resolver hold settings are a bit confusing, is there a
> way to tell
> > haproxy to rely on the TTL it gets from DNS servers/resolvers? It seems
> to be
> > relying on some hard-coded default values instead.
>
> I don't think TTL is currently considered, no. How long it will cache
> is configurable and defaults to 10 seconds ("valid"). Because you'd
> use very low values here anyway (and have your recursive resolver do
> proper TTL considering caching), I don't believe there is a huge
> impact because of this.
>
> But I agree, it would be better to consider the TTL.
>
>
> Lukas
>
>

Hi,

That is correct, the runtime resolver does not follow up the TTL.
It's on purpose and by design to allow the admin themselves to decide when
they want to trigger a new request and to avoid some DNS relay would
rewrite TTLs to very long value (my ISP enforce anything lower than 20
minutes to 20 minutes).

We could add on the roadmap to support TTL, as an option, but I need first
to understand the use case.

Baptiste

Reply via email to