Thank you to Mark Andrews and Matus Uhlar for your quick responses ...
I see now how my thought process is fundamentally flawed :-)
Sorry for the silly question !!
Verne
Verne Britton, Lead Systems Programmer voice: (30
On 26.09.20 09:58, Verne Britton wrote:
I see that RFC2181, written I think 20+ years ago, says in part
5.2. TTLs of RRs in an RRSet
Resource Records also have a time to live (TTL). It is possible for
the RRs in an RRSet to have different TTLs. No uses for this have
been found that cann
It won’t happen and there is zero point in doing so as all RRs in a RRset are
deleted at the same time.
--
Mark Andrews
> On 26 Sep 2020, at 23:59, Verne Britton wrote:
>
> I see that RFC2181, written I think 20+ years ago, says in part
>
>
>>
>> 5.2. TTLs of RRs in an RRSet
>>
>> Resou
I see that RFC2181, written I think 20+ years ago, says in part
5.2. TTLs of RRs in an RRSet
Resource Records also have a time to live (TTL). It is possible for
the RRs in an RRSet to have different TTLs. No uses for this have
been found that cannot be better accomplished in other way
4 matches
Mail list logo