This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[dns-wg] Lower TTLs for NS and DS records in reverse DNS delegations
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Lower TTLs for NS and DS records in reverse DNS delegations
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Lower TTLs for NS and DS records in reverse DNS delegations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeroen Massar
jeroen at massar.ch
Thu Dec 2 13:11:17 CET 2021
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 6:35 AM Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk at powerdns.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2021-11-29 at 17:07 +0100, Ralf Weber wrote: > > Moin! > > > > On 29 Nov 2021, at 12:59, Anand Buddhdev wrote: > > > > > We propose to lower, in the first quarter of 2022, the TTL on NS records to 86400 and on DS records to 3600. > > I very much support that and would go even lower for for NS records. Maybe consider 21600 there. > > Same. I support this, and I also support lowering NS even further, even > to 3600. Another Aye from me on DS & NS to TTL 3600. I think this will definitely help in DNSSEC deployment as then a mistake is much easier corrected, which thus means more people might deploy DNSSEC. For reverses there is low risk of course, till one realizes that most SMTP servers verify it hard, and missing reverse typically is considered misconfiguration. But especially for the SMTP case, an hour outage is doable, mail will be delayed but will be retried. Greets, Jeroen
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Lower TTLs for NS and DS records in reverse DNS delegations
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Lower TTLs for NS and DS records in reverse DNS delegations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]