Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I support lowering the TTL on the DS records to 3600.
> I support lowering the TTL on the NS records - I was going to put my
> hat in for 21600, but Mr van Dijk's suggestion of 3600 is very
> enticing.
> But I liked Mr. Lawrence's suggestion on gathering data on lowering the
> NS records TTL. Perhaps the TTL can be lowered from 172800 to 86400 to
> 21600, then to 3600, collecting data along the way.
Aside from performance/load on the distributing name servers, what else would
you collect?
Or perhaps I am asking: What is your hypothesis, and what kind of data do you
need to prove/disprove it?
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-wg
