Mark Delany <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15Jul20, Philip Homburg allegedly wrote: > > From the point of view of latency hiding, it may make sense to always > > reduce the ttl so that a recursive resolver can reply to the stub > > resolver immediately and simultaniously trigger a refresh
Yes, I was wondering if "always" will work well enough, or (if there is in fact enough of a herd to be worth trying to spread it out) whether something jittery might be a bit better. Bert's post suggested that the load is spread across enough domain names that TTL expiry herds are more like a whisper than a thunder, so as he said, if there is any prefetch logic it should err on the side of simplicity... > That's a clever idea, tho it does presuppose that most of the stubs > are caching. In the worst case where no stubs are caching, all that's > been achieved is to increase the query rate to the recursive resolver. If they aren't cacheing the stubs will be ignoring the TTL from the recursive server so it doesn't matter how the TTL is adjusted :-) Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <[email protected]> http://dotat.at/ Rockall, Malin, Hebrides: West 4 or 5, backing southwest 5 to 7. Moderate becoming rough. Drizzle, fog patches. Moderate or good, occasionally very poor. _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
