Alex van den Bogaerdt [mailto:alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net]
wrote:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 07:01:02PM -0500, Marc Alaia wrote:
Actually, I'm kind of surprised at how low the TTL's are for both the
above
domains (especially the NS TTL's)....
When experimenting, a low TTL is a precautionary measure for that moment
where
you make a mistake. It wouldn't be nice if I got a record that is fubar
and
cache it for several days...
HTH
Alex
Thanks, Alex. Yes, I do understand the need to keep TTL's low in that
situation, but I would think that AOL is not experimenting with its
nameservers (The TTL for each was 3600) or the IP's of their nameservers.
In fact, the records have a 48-hour TTL at the root servers (mandatory?)
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/lookup.ch?name=aol.com&type=NS
Anyway, just seems like extra traffic on their nameservers....
Marc