Re: Reducing the 2560 negative cache default

On 17 May 2010, at 15:15, Chris Pugh wrote:
> On 16 May 2010 22:48, Daryl Tester <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Chris Pugh wrote:
>>> Wouldn't that be a little too pedantic for just a simple change of ttl?
>> 
>> Negative ttl was the original issue (see subject line).
> 
> Sorry, but I don't see how that relates??
> 
> Default TTL can be over-ridden in most of the basic records, simply by stating a
> TTL value for the record in question.  You don't specifically need a Z
> record just
> to do a ttl, the short forms do it just as well.
> 
> Z SOA records allow more control by giving one the ability set *all* the other
> values as well,
> 
>     Zfqdn:mname:rname:ser:ref:ret:exp:min:ttl:timestamp:lo

The question was, must a Z record be used in order to change the value of min (that's Minimum, or in these enlightened times, Negative Cache Lifetime)?

Which begs the question, what does dnscache use "min" for, the former or the latter?  It's meaningless in the former capacity, so it's not useful in the SOA record (BIND uses $ttl to set a default which is much more useful).

Cheers,
Sabahattin