[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Dyn DDoS this AM?
- Subject: Dyn DDoS this AM?
- From: lists at eitanadler.com (Eitan Adler)
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:06:18 -0700
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <CAC1-dt=AK-f7AeeqnM4k3O0Ev+2bAbpJMObcmV7vfQp2Mf8kmA@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAOMvUQc0eDVa=UUhUQOZbbyfQYk--oTumO8p_TE3NUMH--RnKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAE6+G5Uxhykxp6kp2VDZNuXhceYBxtV=nzZ50qaPzc0k7ja-xw@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAF6rxgk9E1=f1Dz+yMOqMkvUbjX3Jqwxisu28M1YAs7_kYLonQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CADJJukkadFbOYvWVan_8pdR=fxenqGRsyisiKBH6vpyDse6JrQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On 24 October 2016 at 01:25, LHC <large.hadron.collider at gmx.com> wrote:
> All this TTL talk makes me think.
>
> Why not have two ttls - a 'must-recheck' (does not expire the record but forces a recheck; updates record if server replies & serial has incremented) and a 'must-delete' (cache will be stale at this point)?
If clients can't get one TTL correct what makes you think they will
get a more complicated two TTL system correct?
--
Eitan Adler