On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 12:53:05AM +0100, Richard Letts wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Aaron L. Meehan wrote:
>
> > Well I say one thing here: it would be nice if AOL's TTL for the zone
> > was a bit higher. An hour seems a bit low and not net-friendly since
> > there are so many MX lookups, etc, for aol.com. Am I being
> > unreasonable or just highly pedantic? :) I have a mind to gather some
> > stats..
>
> given the few numbers of packets required to obtain the information in
> comparison to the number required to transfer mail I'd not worry about
> it myself.
well the number of packets doesn't really matter in itself. But DNS packets have high
latency when not cached, which means they're a _slowdown_. This exact point is one of
the things holding up widespread QMTP acceptance, because djb can't decide on an
efficient way to tell if a host supports QMTP, without having to do more DNS requests
than he does now.
> I use TTL values down to <5 minutes for some names in the zones I'm
> responsible for. of course I normally only expect people on my campus to
> be using those and we're about to change them to something else.
Well if most usage is on campus, that means that the caching server is as close as
the authorative server, or they might be even the same machine. Then it doesn't
matter that much. OTOH, if people are using your nameserver as their nameserver
anyway, you might as well beef up the TTL since people on campus will see updates
immediately, unless they run their own caching named's.
Greetz, Peter
--
| 'He broke my heart, | Peter van Dijk |
I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
nognixz - As the sun | Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl |
| Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
