[89430] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: DNS TTL adherence
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Wed Mar 15 11:10:08 2006
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:09:38 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@verizonbusiness.com>
In-reply-to: <200603151525.38837.simonw@zynet.net>
To: Simon Waters <simonw@zynet.net>
Cc: Rodney Joffe <rjoffe@centergate.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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 :(
