Hello,
On 07.10.2010 02:40, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4cad0856.9010...@arcor.de, Christoph Weber-Fahr writes:
Well, I was talking about minimum values, and, especially,
a min-ncache-ttl, i.e. a minimum for negative caching.
My point of view is that of a the operator of a very busy DNS
In message 4cadef52.2020...@arcor.de, Christoph Weber-Fahr writes:
Hello,
On 07.10.2010 02:40, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4cad0856.9010...@arcor.de, Christoph Weber-Fahr writes:
Well, I was talking about minimum values, and, especially,
a min-ncache-ttl, i.e. a minimum for negative
Hello,
On 06.10.2010 01:16, Doug Barton wrote:
If you would like to create a new thread your best bet is to
store the list address in your e-mail address book and then
create a new message to the list. By replying to someone
else's message and changing the subject you cause your
message to
In message 4cad0856.9010...@arcor.de, Christoph Weber-Fahr writes:
On 05.10.2010 16:45, Nicholas Wheeler wrote:
At Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:19:49 -0400, Atkins, Brian (GD/VA-NSOC) wrote:
From what I've read, everyone seems to frown on over-riding cache
times, but I haven't seen any
On 10/5/2010 9:19 AM, Atkins, Brian (GD/VA-NSOC) wrote:
I asked a similar question 2 weeks ago and got a non-response (e.g., a
response with no real information).
From what I've read, everyone seems to frown on over-riding cache times,
but I haven't seen any specifics as to why it's bad.
At Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:19:49 -0400, Atkins, Brian (GD/VA-NSOC) wrote:
I asked a similar question 2 weeks ago and got a non-response (e.g., a
response with no real information).
From what I've read, everyone seems to frown on over-riding cache times,
but I haven't seen any specifics as to
@lists.isc.org
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org bind-users@lists.isc.org
Sent: Tue Oct 05 10:36:27 2010
Subject: Re: minimum cache times?
At Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:19:49 -0400, Atkins, Brian (GD/VA-NSOC) wrote:
I asked a similar question 2 weeks ago and got a non-response (e.g., a
response with no real
At Tue, 5 Oct 2010 10:45:04 -0400, Nicholas Wheeler wrote:
I think Brian's OP was about a max-ttl override ... Which is the
opposite. The only disadvantages I see is a potential waste of
bandwidth (and it violates the protocol).
max-ttl is (very) different from min-ttl. max-ttl might (or
I asked a similar question 2 weeks ago and got a non-response (e.g., a
response with no real information).
The only somewhat good reason I see to overriding (well, lowering) the
cache time is if it causes your server any memory issues. Although the
real solution then would be to buy more
Thank you for all the good responses.
While I am unsure if Chrisoph's question was answered, I now understand
why most everyone thinks it is a bad idea to over-ride the TTL for
records I am not authoritive for:
1) It's not RFC compliant for the protocol
2) Changing it could potentially increase
--On 5. oktober 2010 13.46.30 -0400 Atkins, Brian (GD/VA-NSOC)
brian.atki...@va.gov wrote:
Currently, we use DNS to blackhole bad domains. The list of bad domains
are provided to us from another government entity or vetted by an
enterprise security team.
How do you implement this list? By
After noodling it out with a co-administrator, that is the same
conclusion we came to.
Thank you for confirming it.
Brian
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Hello,
On 05.10.2010 16:45, Nicholas Wheeler wrote:
At Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:19:49 -0400, Atkins, Brian (GD/VA-NSOC) wrote:
From what I've read, everyone seems to frown on over-riding cache times,
but I haven't seen any specifics as to why it's bad.
Because it's a protocol violation,
If you would like to create a new thread your best bet is to store the
list address in your e-mail address book and then create a new message
to the list. By replying to someone else's message and changing the
subject you cause your message to appear hidden behind the message you
replied to
Hello,
recently, I ran into a debate on the merits of negative TTL caching.
Digging a little into the issue I found that apparently
- no version of Bind currently supports min-(n)cache-ttl parameters
- MS DNS apparently has such a function
- somebody (possibly Michael Milligan) at some time put
15 matches
Mail list logo
