Minimum TTL?

[Bob Harold]

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Grant Taylor via bind-users <
bind-users at lists.isc.org> wrote:

> On 02/08/2018 08:51 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> I think what is "OK" is up to each administrator.
>
> Obviously the zone administrators have decided that they want people to
> use the 2s TTL.
>
> That being said, it is up to each individual recursive server operator if
> they want to honor what the zone administrators have published, or if the
> recursive administrators want to override published desires.
>
> It really is something for the zone owner to consider.
>>
>
> Yes and no.  Yes it's up to the zone owner to consider what intentions
> that they want to publish.  No, the zone owner has no influence on how I
> operate my servers.  I choose how I operate my servers.
>
> If I choose to operate my servers in a manner that ignores the zone
> owner's published desires, that's on me.
>
> I feel like this discussion is really two issues:  1)  Does the capability
> to override published values and 2) should I use said capability.  They
> really are two different questions.  I personally would like to see BIND
> have the option to do #1, even if I never use it.
>
>
+1


>
> --
> Grant. . . .
> unix || die
>
>
-- 
Bob Harold
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20180208/642dcd23/attachment.html>