Re: AT&T / Verizon DNS Flush?

[Blake Hudson <blake () ispn net>]

Seems like the DNS protocol already addresses this issue with TTLs. The 
issue is that people sometimes regret the TTLs they chose (or their 
service provider chose for them). Any reason registrars commonly choose 
a 2 day TTL? Would they be just as well off with a 1 day TTL (my guess 
is that they would)?

--Blake

Hank Nussbacher wrote the following on 4/16/2014 11:32 AM:
> At 10:21 16/04/2014 -0600, Steven Briggs wrote:
>
> Been discussed and nothing has been done:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-dnsop-8.pdf
> https://www.dns-oarc.net/files/workshop-201005/DNS-Emergency-Alert-System.pdf 
>
>
> Will keep happening until someone decides to act.
>
> -Hank
>
>
> > Yeah...I know.  Unfortunately, the domain was "mishandled" by our
> > registrar, who imposed their own TTLs on our zone, THEN turned it 
> > back over
> > to us with a 48HR TTL.  Which is very bad.
> >
> > I really appreciate all of your help, guys!
> > ᐧ
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Laszlo Hanyecz 
> > <laszlo () heliacal net>wrote:
> >
> > > The generally accepted and scalable way to accomplish this is to 
> > advertise
> > > your freshness preferences using the SOA record of your domain.  It 
> > would
> > > be pretty tricky to make this work with a swivel chair type system for
> > > every domain and host on the internet.  You would have to contact 
> > every
> > > user and ask them to invalidate the caches, after asking their 
> > recursing
> > > server operator to do the same.
> > >
> > > -Laszlo
> > >
> > >
> > > On Apr 16, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Steven Briggs <stevenbriggs () gmail com> 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Not sure where to point this... I was wondering if anybody knows an
> > > inroad
> > > > to reach AT&T and Verizon systems people to flush their caches for "
> > > > proofpoint.com"?
> > > >
> > > > Any help is greatly appreciated!
> > > >
> > > > Steven Briggs
> > > > ᐧ
> > >
> > >