nanog mailing list archives
Re: DNS TTL adherence
From: Simon Waters <simonw () zynet net>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:25:38 +0000
On Wednesday 15 Mar 2006 14:16, you wrote:
Let me help you become aware, then...
:)
Some people don't believe it is a bug, and therefor don't see that anything needs "fixing".
Oh the one shown is a bug, and needs fixing.
Feel free to, for example, send 2 consecutive queries for a record that has a short (<10,000 second TTL) to 212.23.11.206.
Safecom http response, busybox on telnet, some sort of embedded Linux device. Safecom sell routers... Of course can't tell if the broken DNS behaviour is the device, or possibly it is proxying upstream DNS servers.
This behavior is unfortunately not unique.
Alas what others peoples servers do, shouldn't be an issue for you. Your problem is they can be coerced into a DoS attack, not that the data is stale.
Current thread:
- DNS TTL adherence Thurman, Steven (Mar 14)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence ennova2005-nanog (Mar 14)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Joe Maimon (Mar 14)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Simon Waters (Mar 15)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Rodney Joffe (Mar 15)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Simon Waters (Mar 15)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Jon Lewis (Mar 15)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Christopher L. Morrow (Mar 15)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Joe Maimon (Mar 14)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence ennova2005-nanog (Mar 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- FW: DNS TTL adherence Thurman, Steven (Mar 15)
- RE: DNS TTL adherence Sharad Agarwal (Mar 15)
- Re: DNS TTL adherence Simon Waters (Mar 16)
- Re: FW: DNS TTL adherence Igor Gashinsky (Mar 17)
- RE: DNS TTL adherence Sharad Agarwal (Mar 15)