On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 02:22:19PM -0700, William Chops Westfield wrote:
> On May 13, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Herbert Graf wrote:
> >
> > Actually it's the best solution when you've run out of bandwidth. By
> > redirecting to 127.0.0.1 you effectively use the least possible
> > bandwidth per hit without actually having to turn off anything.
> >
> >
> DNS entries aren't supposed to have timeouts so low that changing
> the address is useful for anything as dynamic as fixing bandwidth
> limitations; the previous address is very likely to be cached in
> DNS servers all over the world for timeouts in the range of DAYS.

They aren't supposed too, but people do it anyway. Lots of dynamic DNS
services set extremely low TTL's, even as low as one minute. That said
many large ISPs don't honor those TTLs and have minimum caching times.
AOL is a good example of this and many dyndns sites don't always work
correctly on it.

> THe only use for 127.0.0.1 in a DNS table that I can think of is
> if the site has some under some sort of DDOS attack based on a
> bug they need to fix in a leisurely manner...

Ha! Also of course www.yourpersonalpornhere.com...

-- 
pete@petertodd.ca http://www.petertodd.ca
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist