In article <mailman.441.1518125799.749.bind-us...@lists.isc.org>, Grant Taylor <gtay...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> On 02/08/2018 08:51 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > > Also, just for argument's sake, one user wants to extend TTLs to > > 5s. Another wants 60s TTLs. What is OK and what is going too far? > > I think what is "OK" is up to each administrator. > > Obviously the zone administrators have decided that they want people to > use the 2s TTL. > > That being said, it is up to each individual recursive server operator > if they want to honor what the zone administrators have published, or if > the recursive administrators want to override published desires. > > > It really is something for the zone owner to consider. > > Yes and no. Yes it's up to the zone owner to consider what intentions > that they want to publish. No, the zone owner has no influence on how I > operate my servers. I choose how I operate my servers. > > If I choose to operate my servers in a manner that ignores the zone > owner's published desires, that's on me. > > I feel like this discussion is really two issues: 1) Does the > capability to override published values and 2) should I use said > capability. They really are two different questions. I personally > would like to see BIND have the option to do #1, even if I never use it. As long as you understand the implications of what you're doing? The zone owner may be using short TTLs to implement load balancing and/or quick failover. If you extend the TTLs, your users may experience poor performance when they try to go to these sites using out-of-date cache entries. -- Barry Margolin Arlington, MA _______________________________________________ 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
