Minimum TTL?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <mailman.441.1518125799.749.bind-users at lists.isc.org>,
 Grant Taylor <gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net> 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.

As long as you understand the implications of what you're doing?

The zone owner may be using short TTLs to implement load balancing 
and/or quick failover. If you extend the TTLs, your users may experience 
poor performance when they try to go to these sites using out-of-date 
cache entries.

-- 
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA