nanog mailing list archives
Re: ttl for ns
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog () bakker net>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:33:29 +0200
* mcgehrin () reverse net (Matthew McGehrin) [Fri 13 Aug 2004, 16:46 CEST]:
1. It's a financial issue. In the event of an emergency or an server failure, how many hours can you financially be offline. Are your customers willing to wait up to 2 days for their DNS caches to update with the new IP address?
In the event of a server failure I suggest you add its IP address as an alias to a non-deceased host. You kept backups of your master zone files on another machine, didn't you?
A very busy domain might benefit from having a higher TTL value for their nameserver's but having a lower TTL for hosts, so that you minimize your downtime, in the event of a server failure. For example, when Akamai was having DNS issues, content providers with low TTL's were able to switch to secondary nameservers faster, than zones with using a higher TTL.
Assuming you're talking about a specific incident not too long ago: To me it looked more like those who had actually spent thought on what to do in the case of a large, longer Akamai failure had less impact when that failure occurred. -- Niels.
Current thread:
- Re: That MIT paper, (continued)
- Re: That MIT paper Randy Bush (Aug 12)
- Re: That MIT paper William Allen Simpson (Aug 11)
- Re: That MIT paper William Allen Simpson (Aug 12)
- ttl for ns William Allen Simpson (Aug 12)
- Re: ttl for ns Stephen J. Wilcox (Aug 13)
- Re: ttl for ns William Allen Simpson (Aug 13)
- Re: ttl for ns William Allen Simpson (Aug 13)
- Re: ttl for ns John Payne (Aug 13)
- Re: ttl for ns William Allen Simpson (Aug 13)
- Re: ttl for ns Matthew McGehrin (Aug 13)
- Re: ttl for ns Niels Bakker (Aug 13)