That MIT paper

Thu Aug 12 01:38:12 UTC 2004

Paul Vixie wrote:
> 
> (what if a general decline in TTL's resulted from publication of That
> MIT Paper?)
> 
It's an academic paper.  The best antedote would be to publish a nicely 
researched reply paper.

Meanwhile, I'm probably one of those guilty of too large a reduction of 
TTLs.  I remember when the example file had a TTL of 999999 for NS.  

What's the best practice? 

Currently, we're using (dig result, criticism appreciated):

watervalley.net.        1d12h IN SOA    ns2.watervalley.net. hshere.watervalley.net. (
                                        2004081002      ; serial
                                        4h33m20s        ; refresh
                                        10M             ; retry
                                        1d12h           ; expiry
                                        1H )            ; minimum

watervalley.net.        1H IN MX        10 mail.watervalley.net.
watervalley.net.        1H IN A         12.168.164.26
watervalley.net.        1H IN NS        ns3.watervalley.net.
watervalley.net.        1H IN NS        ns1.ispc.org.
watervalley.net.        1H IN NS        ns2.ispc.org.
watervalley.net.        1H IN NS        ns2.watervalley.net.
watervalley.net.        1H IN NS        ns3.ispc.org.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
mail.watervalley.net.   1H IN A         12.168.164.3
ns1.ispc.org.           15h29m10s IN A  66.254.94.14
ns2.ispc.org.           15h29m10s IN A  199.125.85.129
ns2.watervalley.net.    1D IN A         12.168.164.2
ns3.ispc.org.           15h29m10s IN A  12.168.164.102
ns3.watervalley.net.    1H IN A         64.49.16.2

-- 
William Allen Simpson
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32