[72672] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in .com/.net
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pete Schroebel)
Thu Jul 22 15:19:44 2004
Reply-To: "Pete Schroebel" <crossfire@smsonline.net>
From: "Pete Schroebel" <crossfire@smsonline.net>
To: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>,
"Paul Vixie" <vixie@vix.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:18:35 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>
To: "Paul Vixie" <vixie@vix.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in .com/.net
>
> On 22.07 17:08, Paul Vixie wrote:
> >
> > .... therefore if there were a drop in TTL for root-zone data, it would
> > only be a multiplier against 2.1% of f-root's present volume.
>
> I am not worried so much about the root servers here because of the
> reasons you cite. The root server system is engineered to cope with
> hugely excessive loads already.
> I am worried about all the other root servers that have to deal with
> much lesser query loads and might feel the impact of lowered TTLs
> much more.
>
> > ... and the impact of
> > having it in many TLD's will be to put downward pressure on TTL's. this
> > all needs to be looked at very carefully.
>
> Yes, we need to keep an eye on this and argue against lowering TTLs
> across the board for little good reasion.
>
>
Infospace / Authorize Net and their successors have their ttl's set for 10
minutes and that just plain goofy. Plus, TTL's at 600 or below have always
been the calling card for a spammer; . . . er not that I am accusing them of
spamming, rather they are just straining dns queries.
Peter