Minimum TTL?

[Grant Taylor]

On 02/08/2018 08:51 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> Also, just for argument's sake, one user wants to extend TTLs to 
> 5s. Another wants 60s TTLs. What is OK and what is going too far?

I think what is "OK" is up to each administrator.

Obviously the zone administrators have decided that they want people to 
use the 2s TTL.

That being said, it is up to each individual recursive server operator 
if they want to honor what the zone administrators have published, or if 
the recursive administrators want to override published desires.

> It really is something for the zone owner to consider.

Yes and no.  Yes it's up to the zone owner to consider what intentions 
that they want to publish.  No, the zone owner has no influence on how I 
operate my servers.  I choose how I operate my servers.

If I choose to operate my servers in a manner that ignores the zone 
owner's published desires, that's on me.

I feel like this discussion is really two issues:  1)  Does the 
capability to override published values and 2) should I use said 
capability.  They really are two different questions.  I personally 
would like to see BIND have the option to do #1, even if I never use it.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3982 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20180208/c22b3ade/attachment-0001.bin>