minimum RR TTL cache configuration
Marc.Thach at radianz.com
Marc.Thach at radianz.com
Thu Jul 12 16:15:14 UTC 2001
Guy,
I think the standards say that the received TTL is the maximum that you
should cache for. Now if you code a caching server to do otherwise then
nobody can stop you (and I guess it would be quite easy to patch that
functionality into the code). Apart from the obvious problems when a
server is actually moved, the downside is that any DNS-based load-balancers
or redirectors will not work effectively since they rely on their responses
being short-lived. Therefore your users may experience failures when
accessing servers which use these techniques, and obviously these failures
could last as long as the cache time you have set.
It is in the interests of the operators of Internet servers to set a
sensibly long TTL for their DNS since it minimises their DNS traffic too,
so I guess most people trust that a short TTL is only sent when it is
required and are therefore happy to observe it.
rgds
Marc TXK
________________________________________________________________________
The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of
the organisation providing the mail address from which this message was
sent
"Guy Pazi"
<guy at wanwall.co To: <bind-users at isc.org>
m> cc:
Sent by: Subject: minimum RR TTL cache configuration
bind-users-boun
ce at isc.org
12/07/2001
17:16
Hi,
In order to minimize dns traffic I would like to cache received RRs for a
minimum time period; lets say one week.
Is it possible? How common is it? Am I way over standards?
Thanks
Guy
More information about the bind-users
mailing list