On 30/11/12 10:08, Joe Abley wrote:
Don, you example of loopback.dns.net.nz is a good one. I tend to be more crude in my zones, e.g. see below.
[ '.' in the SOA MNAME field ] Yeah, I thought about that. But in the end I decided that giving a positive A record answer for the MNAME would mean that the 1 day TTLs on the answers would apply and sites with the broken hosts wouldn't bother us or anyone else for another 24 hours, whereas negative TTLs are generally shorter, and negative caching was iffy at the time. I'd be lying if I said I didn't think the behaviour of sending unsolicited UPDATEs by default was obnoxious, or that telling the broken hosts to update themselves didn't tickle my sense of humour... On 30/11/12 10:28, Phil Regnauld wrote:
I'd have hoped loopback.dns.net.nz to be v6-enabled :)
Of course I totally didn't expect that ... ;-) Note though that this was done a dozen years ago, when the flood of UPDATEs was actually a (small) problem, and never revisited. I'm actually curious as to how common unsolicited UPDATEs are now. -- don