Minimum TTL?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 08.02.2018 um 16:51 schrieb Mukund Sivaraman:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 04:39:36PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 08.02.2018 um 16:34 schrieb Mukund Sivaraman:
>>> If the RRset wants a TTL of N seconds, then that is the authoritative
>>> instruction from the owner of the zone about how the data should be
>>> used. We have to follow that. The RFCs so far do not allow increasing
>>> TTL, though they allow decreasing it.
>>>
>>> If a DNSBL zone has a TTL of 2 seconds, then talk to the zone owner
>>> about why it is so. There ought to be a reason from their perspective
>>> why it is set to 2s
>>
>> so what - nobody can force me to ask him the same question every 2 seconds
>> and as long it's a local resolver for my own services the one i have to ask
>> about any why in doubt is the person i face in the mirror every morning
> 
> I doubt the zone owner is forcing you to use their zone. You can nix
> fetches to it. If you want the zone data, then follow what the zone
> owner requires.

does not matter

>> yes, you are free to decide that named don't need to support the users
>> wish of such a feature. but the result is that the user stops to use
>> named at all on a inbound-mailserver and is done
> 
> 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?

that's simply the users decision - problem solved

> It really is something for the zone owner to consider
for sure not