DNS Negative Caching

[Darcy Kevin (FCA)]

What's in a name? :-)

RFC 2308 said that the use of the last field of the SOA to set negative-caching TTL is "the new defined meaning of the SOA minimum field". So you can *call* it "minimum", but it is *actually* supposed to function as something else...

Eventually I hope BIND will conform to the spirit of RFC 2308 and stop using the last field of the SOA to set the default TTL, as a "fallback" in scenarios where the file would otherwise be illegal (i.e. the first RR has no explicit TTL set, and there is no $TTL directive preceding it).  RFC 2308 is so old, that if it were a person, it would be legal to buy cigarettes in some parts of the world. It's long past time for folks to get with the program.

						- Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: bind-users-bounces at lists.isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounces at lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Chris Buxton
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 11:06 AM
To: BIND Users
Subject: Re: DNS Negative Caching

> Is that really still true? I thought that use of the Minimum field 
> went away when it was changed to be the negative cache TTL.

Barry,

Yes, it’s still true. If you don’t set a default TTL, then the last field of the SOA record does double duty as both a default TTL and a negative caching TTL. And no RFC has ever updated its name.

Chris Buxton
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users at lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users