Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!UUNET.UU.NET!asp
From: asp@UUNET.UU.NET (Andrew Partan)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Subject: Re:  Pros and cons of secondary name servers off site
Message-ID: <9103111931.AA16266@uunet.uu.net>
Date: 11 Mar 91 19:31:38 GMT
References: <9103071743.AA06347@braden.isi.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 33

[This message is not really about secondary name servers off site but
rather about the values for SOA timers as sugested in RFC 1033].

> From: braden@ISI.EDU
> Subject: Re:  Pros and cons of secondary name servers off site
>
>  I would look to RFC-1032 and RFC-1033 for guidance on your question.  

RFC 1033 suggests using the following values in the SOA record:

         @   IN   SOA   SRI-NIC.ARPA.   HOSTMASTER.SRI-NIC.ARPA. (
                           45         ;serial
                           3600       ;refresh
                           600        ;retry
                           3600000    ;expire
                           86400 )    ;minimum

I think that the refresh & retry times are way too sort in today's
Internet.

I have been suggesting to anyone that asks me to use at least 1 day for
refresh (and preferably higher) and to use at least 1 hour for the
retry time.  We use 5 days & 1 hour here.

I also think that the expire time of ~40 days is rather long - I have
been suggesting 20 days.


Has anyone been looking at operational issues for DNS (such as SOA
times)?  Is there any work going on about updating this RFC or the BOG
(Bind Operator's Guide)?

	--asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan)