[73136] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ttl for ns
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Niels Bakker)
Fri Aug 13 11:34:16 2004
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:33:29 +0200
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <001801c48144$369cee30$af00a8c0@orange>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
* mcgehrin@reverse.net (Matthew McGehrin) [Fri 13 Aug 2004, 16:46 CEST]:
> 1. It's a financial issue. In the event of an emergency or an server
> failure, how many hours can you financially be offline. Are your customers
> willing to wait up to 2 days for their DNS caches to update with the new IP
> address?
In the event of a server failure I suggest you add its IP address as an
alias to a non-deceased host. You kept backups of your master zone files
on another machine, didn't you?
> A very busy domain might benefit from having a higher TTL value for their
> nameserver's but having a lower TTL for hosts, so that you minimize your
> downtime, in the event of a server failure. For example, when Akamai was
> having DNS issues, content providers with low TTL's were able to switch to
> secondary nameservers faster, than zones with using a higher TTL.
Assuming you're talking about a specific incident not too long ago:
To me it looked more like those who had actually spent thought on what
to do in the case of a large, longer Akamai failure had less impact when
that failure occurred.
-- Niels.
