nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAT Multihoming
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:53:15 +0200
On 4-jun-2007, at 4:33, Stephen Satchell wrote:
The last time I renumbered, I found that quite a few people were not honoring the TTLs I put in my DNS zone files. I would clone the new address and monitor traffic to the old address -- and it took up to seven days for the traffic to the old address to die down enough that I could take it out.
Are you sure this was the result of DNS servers increasing the TTL, not simply applications doing their own caching?
Current thread:
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted, (continued)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (Jun 02)
- NAT Multihoming (was:Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Lamar Owen (Jun 02)
- Re: NAT Multihoming (was:Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Paul Vixie (Jun 02)
- Re: NAT Multihoming (was:Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Donald Stahl (Jun 02)
- Re: NAT Multihoming Simon Leinen (Jun 03)
- Re: NAT Multihoming Chris Owen (Jun 03)
- Re: NAT Multihoming Randy Bush (Jun 03)
- Re: NAT Multihoming Stephen Satchell (Jun 03)
- Re: NAT Multihoming Stephane Bortzmeyer (Jun 04)
- Re: NAT Multihoming Donald Stahl (Jun 04)
- Re: NAT Multihoming Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 04)
- Re: NAT Multihoming Donald Stahl (Jun 03)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl (Jun 03)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Igor Gashinsky (Jun 03)
- IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted michael.dillon (Jun 03)
- Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (Jun 03)
- Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted Igor Gashinsky (Jun 03)
- Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted John Curran (Jun 03)
- Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted matthew zeier (Jun 03)
- Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted william(at)elan.net (Jun 03)