Paul Vixie wrote:
(what if a general decline in TTL's resulted from publication of That MIT Paper?)
It's an academic paper. The best antedote would be to publish a nicely researched reply paper. Meanwhile, I'm probably one of those guilty of too large a reduction of TTLs. I remember when the example file had a TTL of 999999 for NS. What's the best practice? Currently, we're using (dig result, criticism appreciated): watervalley.net. 1d12h IN SOA ns2.watervalley.net. hshere.watervalley.net. ( 2004081002 ; serial 4h33m20s ; refresh 10M ; retry 1d12h ; expiry 1H ) ; minimum watervalley.net. 1H IN MX 10 mail.watervalley.net. watervalley.net. 1H IN A 12.168.164.26 watervalley.net. 1H IN NS ns3.watervalley.net. watervalley.net. 1H IN NS ns1.ispc.org. watervalley.net. 1H IN NS ns2.ispc.org. watervalley.net. 1H IN NS ns2.watervalley.net. watervalley.net. 1H IN NS ns3.ispc.org. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: mail.watervalley.net. 1H IN A 12.168.164.3 ns1.ispc.org. 15h29m10s IN A 66.254.94.14 ns2.ispc.org. 15h29m10s IN A 199.125.85.129 ns2.watervalley.net. 1D IN A 12.168.164.2 ns3.ispc.org. 15h29m10s IN A 12.168.164.102 ns3.watervalley.net. 1H IN A 64.49.16.2 -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32