[dns-operations] Who Ignores TTLs ?

[Joseph S D Yao]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 07:38:37AM +0100, bert hubert wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 03:01:17PM +1300, Simon Lyall wrote:
> > I keep seeing a persistent complaint that some DNS caching operators
> > ignore TTLs or otherwise keep records for longer than the TTL would
> > indicate.
> 
> I am aware of a severely resource constrained PowerDNS operator once
> patching their Recursor to set a lower bound on their TTLs of 5 or 10
> minutes.
> 
> But this is probably not on the scale of what you mean.


I could see where an upper bound would help a storage-constrained
server.  And it's allowed by RFC 2181:

    Implementations are always free to place an upper bound on any TTL
    received, and treat any larger values as if they were that upper
    bound.  The TTL specifies a maximum time to live, not a mandatory
    time to live.


--
/*********************************************************************\
**
** Joe Yao				jsdy at tux.org - Joseph S. D. Yao
**
\*********************************************************************/