On 10/10/2011 11:13 AM, enigmedia wrote:
On 10/10/2011 9:26 AM, Albert E. Whale, CHS CISA CISSP wrote:
If you are going to update the IP and TTL, why not adjust both? This will
take care of some broken DNS packages.
Hth
Thanks, I had googled around a bit and saw some conflicting opinions about
whether TTL'ing the MX was necessary or even a good idea...but I don't know if
that concern is still true or not?
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 10, 2011, at 10:42 AM, "enigmedia"<online-...@enigmedia.com> wrote:
Hi All: If I need to set a short TTL prior to an MX IP change, do I need to
modify the TTL of the MX record, or just the A record the MX points to?
(There's just a single A record for the MX).
_______________________________________________
There's no point ever changing the TTL of records that are not going to
change. All that does is increase traffic unnecessarily.
So, if the MX record stays the same, but the A record(s) to which the MX
target(s) resolve are going to be changing, modify the TTL of the A
record(s) only.
You should only change both if both sets of records are going to change.
I'm not sure what "brokenness" is being referred to. Is some
implementation of a DNS resolver going to *stop* resolving an MX record
just because the TTL of the A record(s) of the MX target(s) expired and
were re-fetched? I've been doing DNS and SMTP for a _long_ time, and
I've never seen such "brokenness"...
- Kevin
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
