To:
Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
cc:
ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Date:
Wed, 08 Aug 2001 22:44:44 +0700
In-Reply-To:
<5.1.0.14.2.20010808111308.03f697d0@mail.amaranth.net>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 11:13:52 -0400 From: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010808111308.03f697d0@mail.amaranth.net> | Not to mention melting the 'net under ever increasing DNS load, since we'd | no longer be able to cache anything. Huh??? No-one ever said anything about changing the definition or use of the TTL field in DNS replies. If you get a TTL that says an address is valid for a day, then you can keep using it for a day without checking again. Or you can check again every 5 minutes if you want to, but the answers will just keep coming back from your local cache, each with a TTL 5 minutes shorter than the previous time... kre