Am 09.02.2018 um 17:37 schrieb Barry Margolin:
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poor performance when they try to go to these sites using out-of-date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
but that's my problem then and not yours - it's that simple
_______________________________________________
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
