default local DNS caching name server
simo at redhat.com
Sun Apr 13 06:53:30 UTC 2014
On Sun, 2014-04-13 at 16:10 +0930, William Brown wrote:
> A system wide resolver I am not opposed to. I am against a system wide
> *caching* resolver.
> In this case, a cache *is* helpful, as is DNSSEC. But for the other 6, a
> cache is a severe detriment.
About the above 2, can you explain *why* ?
A bunch of people here, feel that it would be a great improvement, you
keep saying it is doomsday, yet I haven't seen a concise explanation of
why that would be (maybe I overlooked, apologies if so).
> I disable the DNS cache in firefox with developer tools.
So you will be able to do the same by setting 1 configuration option in
unbound, or you could disable the resolver entirely.
Can you tell why *everybody* should have the cache disabled by default ?
> Additionally, a short TTL is good, for this situation, but it can't fix
Paul mentioned the single configuration option need to make your
resolver tweak the TTL locally, what else do you need ? And again why
your preference should be the default ? What compelling arguments can
you make ?
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
More information about the devel