[192281] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dyn DDoS this AM?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eitan Adler)
Mon Oct 24 12:55:48 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <6FBDD46B-3FF1-423E-9037-E01D89C63063@gmx.com>
From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:06:18 -0700
To: LHC <large.hadron.collider@gmx.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 24 October 2016 at 01:25, LHC <large.hadron.collider@gmx.com> wrote:
> All this TTL talk makes me think.
>
> Why not have two ttls - a 'must-recheck' (does not expire the record but forces a recheck; updates record if server replies & serial has incremented) and a 'must-delete' (cache will be stale at this point)?
If clients can't get one TTL correct what makes you think they will
get a more complicated two TTL system correct?
--
Eitan Adler
