In fact, the only people I can see this affecting (in the unlikely event it does happen) are people setting up new sites.
In fact, the only people I can see this affecting (in the unlikely event it does happen) are people setting up new sites.
(Just re-iterating the post for Macha... I don't personally believe that the expire-times for ISP DNS cache is as short as Anonymous is making it seem -- but I don't have any numbers off-hand)
I think the average TTL time for a dns zone would be measured in minutes. It needs to be that low in order to do SRV load-balancing, A/B testing, etc.
In any case, in the highly unlikely event that they manage to overload the 13 servers, there's plenty of time for every domain to temporarily extend the TTL on March 31.
Google does not turn up any useful results for this subject. The only reference I've seen to resolvers doing something unusual with caching is on the dns-operations mailing list where I ran into a fellow who doesn't cache records with a TTL less than a minute.
Since you claim it is simple to find a resolver that extends the TTL beyond what the authoritative server has specified, can you please point me to such a resolver?
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm after a server that I can query or something equally authoritative.
EDIT2: My apologies if this is seen as belaboring but please note that nicksuan's comment is not referring to CPE, stub resolvers or client apps.
As for proof, I'm not a professional sysadmin, but based on my reading the most proof you're likely to get is indirect proof in the form of requests to IP addresses long after they've been removed from DNS. If those requests are concentrated in a few ISP subnets, it's reasonable to infer that it's the ISP, not customer equipment, that is caching beyond TTL.
The experience I've had in hosting ten-thousand odd zones suggests that these resolvers do not exist. I've seen a great many claims but am yet to actually see a resolver that extends TTLs in the wild and so I consider them all but myth.
In the past there has been issues at the client - predominately with browsers, MTAs and stub-resolvers - so if I were to observe activity that suggested a stale cache I'd be more likely to attribute it to a bug (be it new or old) if no other data were available.