Efficacy of using short timeout values for an A record

2012-02-14 Thread goran kent 
Hi,

I need to setup an A record for a machine who's IP might change
unexpectedly, and I need to ensure PCs out there cache it for as short
a time as possible:

host1300  IN A 10.10.10.10

Does anyone know whether MS windows PCs will in fact honour that 300s,
then force a re-lookup?  Can I use even shorter values?  eg, 60?

I know this will lead to extra DNS traffic, but this is only for this
particular case.

Thanks for any comments.

Regards
gk
___
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

Re: Efficacy of using short timeout values for an A record

2012-02-15 Thread goran kent 
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Oliver Garraux  wrote:
>> I need to setup an A record for a machine who's IP might change
>> unexpectedly, and I need to ensure PCs out there cache it for as short
>> a time as possible:
>>
>>    host1    300  IN A 10.10.10.10
>>
>> Does anyone know whether MS windows PCs will in fact honour that 300s,
>> then force a re-lookup?  Can I use even shorter values?  eg, 60?
...
> I don't think you'll have a problem with clients not respecting TTL's.
>  Some ISP's resolvers might have a minimum TTL, but 300 seconds isn't
> all that low.  You might run into issues with some service providers
> if you're trying to do something like a 5 second TTL.

Thanks to all for the spirited responses - it's appreciated.

All good information.

-- 
Regards,
gk
___
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