DNS caches that support partitioning ?
Chris Woodfield
rekoil at semihuman.com
Sun Aug 19 20:00:49 UTC 2012
What Patrick said. For large sites that offer services in multiple data centers on multiple IPs that can individually fail at any time, 300 seconds is actually a bit on the long end.
-C
On Aug 18, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:44, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And I say that, because some very popular RRs have insanely low TTLs.
>>
>> Case in point:
>> www.l.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.227.148
>> www.l.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.227.144
>> www.l.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.227.146
>> www.l.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.227.145
>> www.l.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.227.147
>> www.l.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.227.148
>
> Different people have different points of view.
>
> IMHO, if Google losses a datacenter and all users are stuck waiting for a long TTL to run out, that is Very Bad. In fact, I would call even 2.5 minutes (average of 5 min TTL) Very Bad. I'm impressed they are comfortable with a 300 second TTL.
>
> You obviously feel differently. Feel free to set your TTL higher.
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list