override ttl=0

[Herve Guehl]

My users choosed an external service, based on the fact that is fit their
needs.
They are not interrested with the technical parts.
I've read in this thread that many ISP already overrides TTL (and my DSL
provider does !)


Is there any huge difference with the parameter max-cache-ttl  ?




On Jan 4, 2008 4:34 AM, Bill Larson <wllarso at swcp.com> wrote:

> On Jan 3, 2008, at 7:15 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > Remember: the one who takes the decision (using TTL=0) is not the one
> > who pays for it (in terms of larger work for the recursor). So, it
> > seems reasonable that the persons who pay have some sort of control.
>
> You are implying that the end user is the one who pays for an
> administrator setting their TTL=0.  I would argue that it is actually
> the reverse.  The hosting system will be hit much harder due to this
> low TTL value, which also implies that their network is going to be
> hit harder.  And, if their server and network cannot support the
> load, then their targeted end users will stop using the services
> because things are slow.
>
> So, an administrator that use a zero TTL may possibly be hurting
> themselves.  Just another way to look at this problem.
>
> Now, another question.  Is it the responsibility of DNS
> administrators to "fix" problems caused by other people?  I view
> attempting this as a death spiral into the toilet.  A "fix" here
> breaks a properly working situation there requiring another fix
> causing another break...  When does it stop?  In my opinion, by never
> trying to "fix" a systemic problem at any point other than the
> original source.
>
> As to "chasing the uneducated admins to educate them", yes people do
> this.  A user attempting to use one of these misconfigured systems,
> after talking to the local DNS admin to learn what the problem is,
> can contact someone providing the service that they want and inform
> them that they can't use their service until their configuration is
> corrected.  If a user feels that the service is important, they will
> be willing to contact the service provider to tell them that there is
> a problem.  The alternative is to not be able to use the service
> provided.
>
> I suspect that all of us, readers of the BIND-USERS list, have done
> this, as users, at one time or another.
>
> But, the original poster was referring to a problem with a particular
> piece of hardware, not a software configuration.  So, in this
> situation, I would strongly suggest that they refer this whole thread
> to Cisco, the hardware developer/manufacturer, for a solution.  To
> quote Cisco's web page on this product:
>
> > NAT-PT is an interoperability solution that does not require any
> > modifications or extra software, such as dual stacks, to be
> > installed on any end user host of either IPv4 or IPv6 networks
>
>
> Well, if the use of this product requires a modification of BIND,
> then this statement is incorrect.  It needs to be corrected.  Or
> maybe the network implementation using NAT-PT is incorrectly designed
> and Cisco may be able to assist in providing a proper implementation.
>
> Bill
>
>
>