I strongly disagree with your "terminology", TTL is a hint about maximum caching period, not a demand or a contract. A resolver can at any time for any reason discard cached entries. Many Authoritative operators have "unreasonable" TTL's like less than 10 seconds or multiple days and I see no reason why resolvers do not apply minimal and/or max caching rules that are reasonable.
Olafur On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Giovane C. M. Moura <giovane.mo...@sidn.nl> wrote: > Hi, > > In the light of the recent discussions on TTL violations and server > stale here on the list, I decided to take a look on how often resolvers > perform TTL violations in the wild. > > To do that, I used almost 10K Ripe Atlas probes. You can find a report > and datasets at: > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/giovane_moura/dns-ttl- > violations-in-the-wild-with-ripe-atlas-2 > > Now, what was more scary were the violations that *increased* the TTL of > of RR some more than 10x. That may put users at risk of service domains > that may have been already taken down. > > /giovane > > ps: related thread on oarc list at : > https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2017- > November/017039.html > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
