nanog mailing list archives
Re: DNS TTL adherence
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () verizonbusiness com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:09:38 +0000 (GMT)
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Simon Waters wrote:
This behavior is unfortunately not unique.Alas what others peoples servers do, shouldn't be an issue for you. Your problem is they can be coerced into a DoS attack, not that the data is stale.
actually, dos-attack-aside, the interesting thing is that lots of people (original poster perhaps included) believe that TTL's are adhered to except in some marginal cases. I think Rodney's point is that they are not adhered to anywhere near as much as we would all like to believe :( So, if you, or the original poster, is going to move ${important_resource} around ip-wise keep in mind that your ${important_thing} may have to answer to more than 1 ip address for a period much longer than your tuned TTL :(
Current thread:
- DNS TTL adherence Thurman, Steven (Mar 14)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence ennova2005-nanog (Mar 14)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Joe Maimon (Mar 14)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Simon Waters (Mar 15)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Rodney Joffe (Mar 15)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Simon Waters (Mar 15)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Jon Lewis (Mar 15)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Christopher L. Morrow (Mar 15)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Joe Maimon (Mar 14)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence ennova2005-nanog (Mar 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- FW: DNS TTL adherence Thurman, Steven (Mar 15)
- RE: DNS TTL adherence Sharad Agarwal (Mar 15)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Simon Waters (Mar 16)
- Re: FW: DNS TTL adherence Igor Gashinsky (Mar 17)
- RE: DNS TTL adherence Sharad Agarwal (Mar 15)