Google wants to see client addresses in DNS queries
in [Linux Networking]
|
From: Moe Trin on 2 Feb 2010 21:05 On Tue, 02 Feb 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in article <3I2dnfTfkfETC_XWnZ2dnUVZ7vGdnZ2d(a)lyse.net>, David Brown wrote: >Getting more geographically targeted adverts /is/ a benefit. After >all, the Hong Kong user may conceivably have the occasional interest >in clueless idiot ads in Hong Kong, but will definitely have no >interest in the ads for San Francisco. A slight chance of a little >interest is not much, but it is more than no chance of any interest. It certainly is a benefit to the advertising service, and the company that is paying them to get the word of their products/services to customers who may be interested. The way it is now - the server has to wait until the client connects before it knows which set of ads to serve - and not knowing this in advance means either having all content on all servers, redirecting, or having the server reach out and get the ``correct'' content. >And for those with no interest in any adverts, there is always Adblock >Plus - then it doesn't matter where the adverts don't come from. There are many solutions. >I've yet to hear of a good reason why this suggested change to DNS >would be a bad thing - as long as it still works well with DNS >caching, and plays well with current DNS servers and clients. Even the authors admit it's going to increase the caching load on those DNS servers that may "support" clients in more than one geographical area - the "OpenDNS" being one example. Depending on what this service is actually used for, it can impact multi-national networks. My company is ``registered'' in New York state (whois data), has gateways and clients on five continents (what you'd see using traceroute or equal - assuming the firewall permitted such traffic), and we don't publish the location of every/any hosts. Ads are no problem, because our web proxy servers scrub content, but there are a shedload of other services/protocols that use the Internet besides web traffic. >I can't see that anyone is harmed by DNS queries for ad servers being >resolved geographically - after all, these servers already handle >geographic ads, and already have your client IP address. Proxy server addresses >If the end result is that the same "content" ends up in the same >place, just by a shorter route, then that's surely a good thing - >less wasted bandwidth on the main trunks. The important thing is that this draft... standard quote from any such draft: Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other docu- ments at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." is unlikely to be adopted as it currently exists. Drafts may take many revisions before they get adopted, Quicky scan of the list of current drafts shows (among others) <draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-68.txt> which is the sixty-NINTH try at one document. The "multicast DNS" protocol (similar to but intentionally incompatible with Avahi) went to draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-47.txt, while the competing service supported by Avahi got to draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-08.txt before it was dropped. Old guy
From: David Schwartz on 2 Feb 2010 23:11 On Feb 2, 12:01 pm, ibupro...(a)painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote: > If getting more targeted advertisements is a benefit - I'm not sure how > many victims would agree. It increases the value of their eyes. If they don't agree, it's almost certainly because they don't understand the issues. What I can get without having to shell out cashes varies directly with the value of the hits I can provide in exchange. Anything that increases the value of my hits is like more money in my pocket. DS
From: David Brown on 3 Feb 2010 05:48 On 03/02/2010 03:05, Moe Trin wrote: > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in > article<3I2dnfTfkfETC_XWnZ2dnUVZ7vGdnZ2d(a)lyse.net>, David Brown wrote: > >> Getting more geographically targeted adverts /is/ a benefit. After >> all, the Hong Kong user may conceivably have the occasional interest >> in clueless idiot ads in Hong Kong, but will definitely have no >> interest in the ads for San Francisco. A slight chance of a little >> interest is not much, but it is more than no chance of any interest. > > It certainly is a benefit to the advertising service, and the company > that is paying them to get the word of their products/services to > customers who may be interested. The way it is now - the server has > to wait until the client connects before it knows which set of ads > to serve - and not knowing this in advance means either having all > content on all servers, redirecting, or having the server reach out > and get the ``correct'' content. > That's correct. And while I have no more love for the advertising industry than the average person, I have no objection to something that helps them if it does no harm to anyone else. The only disadvantage is perhaps that it will lower the cost of advertising, and that might lead to more adverts. >> And for those with no interest in any adverts, there is always Adblock >> Plus - then it doesn't matter where the adverts don't come from. > > There are many solutions. > Indeed - Adblock is just one easy method. >> I've yet to hear of a good reason why this suggested change to DNS >> would be a bad thing - as long as it still works well with DNS >> caching, and plays well with current DNS servers and clients. > > Even the authors admit it's going to increase the caching load on > those DNS servers that may "support" clients in more than one > geographical area - the "OpenDNS" being one example. Depending on > what this service is actually used for, it can impact multi-national I can see it being a particular issue for OpenDNS. Since google has a rival system to OpenDNS, I suppose they are not going to be too concerned about that... > networks. My company is ``registered'' in New York state (whois > data), has gateways and clients on five continents (what you'd see > using traceroute or equal - assuming the firewall permitted such > traffic), and we don't publish the location of every/any hosts. > Ads are no problem, because our web proxy servers scrub content, > but there are a shedload of other services/protocols that use the > Internet besides web traffic. > Surely in cases like this, you could simply continue to use your existing DNS servers and caches - you would then see no difference from the current situation. But if you decided to move to new DNS software with support for client IP tracking (perhaps to improve locality when accessing websites that run through big proxying companies), you'd need to arrange for it to work in your wide network. >> I can't see that anyone is harmed by DNS queries for ad servers being >> resolved geographically - after all, these servers already handle >> geographic ads, and already have your client IP address. > > Proxy server addresses > Or NAT router address. Either way, that address is typically geographically close to the client. >> If the end result is that the same "content" ends up in the same >> place, just by a shorter route, then that's surely a good thing - >> less wasted bandwidth on the main trunks. > > The important thing is that this draft... standard quote from any > such draft: > > Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six > months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other docu- > ments at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as > reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." > > is unlikely to be adopted as it currently exists. Drafts may take many > revisions before they get adopted, Quicky scan of the list of current > drafts shows (among others)<draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-68.txt> > which is the sixty-NINTH try at one document. The "multicast DNS" > protocol (similar to but intentionally incompatible with Avahi) went > to draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-47.txt, while the competing service supported > by Avahi got to draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-08.txt before it was > dropped. > > Old guy I don't expect that this will be a quick change - even if it gains popular support and the concept is refined so that "everyone" agrees on it, it is going to take a very long time before it is implemented in practice.
From: jellybean stonerfish on 3 Feb 2010 10:27 On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:48:13 +0100, David Brown wrote: > That's correct. And while I have no more love for the advertising > industry than the average person, I have no objection to something that > helps them if it does no harm to anyone else. The only disadvantage is > perhaps that it will lower the cost of advertising, and that might lead > to more adverts. It may lower the cost, but they will charge more because of the increased ablility to direct local adverts.
From: David Schwartz on 3 Feb 2010 10:51
On Feb 3, 7:27 am, jellybean stonerfish <stonerf...(a)geocities.com> wrote: > It may lower the cost, but they will charge more because of the increased > ablility to direct local adverts. While I dispute whether this mechanism will actually help target ads at all (see my other posts), if you assume it does, then it should increase the value of advertisements, thus allowing companies to charge more for them. Theoretically, this should result in web sites getting paid more for those advertising slots and thus being able to provide more content paid for only by advertisements. This is the model consumers want, so anything that increases the value of those ads is a win for them. To be clear, it's a win for them insofar as it increases the value of those ads which makes it possible for more content to be available without a direct cost. It may have other costs that offset that benefit to consumers, such as a reduction in privacy. Though in this case, I don't think that's really true since they find out that information later anyway (when you actually connect to the host you resolved). DS |