What's in a name? :-)
RFC 2308 said that the use of the last field of the SOA to set negative-caching
TTL is "the new defined meaning of the SOA minimum field". So you can *call* it
"minimum", but it is *actually* supposed to function as something else...
Eventually I hope BIND will conform to the spirit of RFC 2308 and stop using
the last field of the SOA to set the default TTL, as a "fallback" in scenarios
where the file would otherwise be illegal (i.e. the first RR has no explicit
TTL set, and there is no $TTL directive preceding it). RFC 2308 is so old,
that if it were a person, it would be legal to buy cigarettes in some parts of
the world. It's long past time for folks to get with the program.
- Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Chris Buxton
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 11:06 AM
To: BIND Users
Subject: Re: DNS Negative Caching
> Is that really still true? I thought that use of the Minimum field
> went away when it was changed to be the negative cache TTL.
Barry,
Yes, it’s still true. If you don’t set a default TTL, then the last field of
the SOA record does double duty as both a default TTL and a negative caching
TTL. And no RFC has ever updated its name.
Chris Buxton
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
