Minimum TTL?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 09.02.2018 um 17:37 schrieb 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 poor performance when they try to go to these sites using out-of-date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

but that's my problem then and not yours - it's that simple