separation of authoritative and recursive functions on internal networks

[Grant Taylor]

On 02/07/2016 04:55 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> This proves robustness in the presence of link failures.
>>> Faster than ttl expiry of local zone changes (provided that notify
>>> messages are sent).
>>
>> I presume you are referring to the slave zone expiration timer, not
>> normal record TTLs.
>
> No, I mean normal TTL.

Now I'm confused.  Will you please elaborate on what you meant then?

I interpret "normal TTL" to be the TTL for a given record.  Is that also 
what you mean?

Are you referring to the fact that a caching recursive server will 
expire the TTL before refreshing to see the new / updated zone contents? 
  Compared to the slave server (presumably with properly functional 
notifications) seeing the same new / updated zone contents?

> If you are a slave and are getting notify
> messages updates happen in seconds, not minutes or hours which are
> the usual range for TTL values.

Agreed.

I mis-took your statement about link failures to mean the ability to 
continue serving the zone while the link was down until the zone expired.

> .local doesn't have servers.

Um....

Please forgive me while I look at many Small Business Server / poorly 
configured networks.

That being said, I'll give you that it's not an official TLD.  (Last I 
looked.)

> Home zones generally aren't delegated to so there isn't a need for
> seperation of rolls.  Even if they are delegated to the home server
> is more likely to be a stealth master so it won't be in the NS
> RRset.  And as with almost all rules there are exceptions.

*nod*

Hence my question about how / where SOHO recursive / authoritative 
servers fall into the rule ~> exception.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die