DNS Negative Caching

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

On 28.08.15 17:32, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote:
>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.

what would you expect bind to do in such case, refuse the zone?
The "minimum" value is safe default in most cases.

Note that is only matters on masters, the XFER slaves see the ttl within
each record...
-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
    One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, 
One OS to bring them all and into darkness bind them