Google wants to see client addresses in DNS queries
in [Linux Networking]
|
From: Man-wai Chang to The Door (24000bps) on 1 Feb 2010 06:04 Does this suggestion have a Dark Side? http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2010012903135NWNTSD -- @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you! /( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.32.7 ^ ^ 19:03:01 up 2 days 3:09 1 user load average: 1.18 1.21 1.14 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
From: Wanna-Be Sys Admin on 1 Feb 2010 18:20 Man-wai Chang to The Door (24000bps) wrote: > Does this suggestion have a Dark Side? > > http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2010012903135NWNTSD > Stupid, don't know if it's real (didn't bother to check). But, it should rely on the server with the quickest response. If one's down, to use the secondary, or so on. DNS already works fine as it is. If they want to check the closest geographical server, it would be better to have checks for other things. Anyway, doesn't matter what google wants to see, luckily they can't change the way it works (though I understand their influence on some providers). Personally, I'm not too concerned about this happening or being a requirement. -- Not really a wanna-be, but I don't know everything.
From: Man-wai Chang to The Door (24000bps) on 2 Feb 2010 00:48 > Stupid, don't know if it's real (didn't bother to check). But, it > should rely on the server with the quickest response. If one's down, Thansk -- @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you! /( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.32.7 ^ ^ 13:48:01 up 2 days 21:54 1 user load average: 1.20 1.19 1.18 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
From: Tobias Nissen on 2 Feb 2010 02:22 Wanna-Be Sys Admin wrote: > Man-wai Chang to The Door (24000bps) wrote: >> Does this suggestion have a Dark Side? >> >> http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2010012903135NWNTSD > > Stupid, don't know if it's real (didn't bother to check). But, it > should rely on the server with the quickest response. If one's down, > to use the secondary, or so on. DNS already works fine as it is. Google's proposal is not about DNS speed. It takes into account the client's network in order to resolve to a host more "fitting" for the client. It does not try to improve the response times of DNS.
From: David Schwartz on 2 Feb 2010 02:48
On Feb 1, 3:04 am, "Man-wai Chang to The Door (24000bps)" <toylet.toy...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Does this suggestion have a Dark Side? > > http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2010012903135NWNTSD It completely defeats the logic of the DNS system. The whole point of having a DNS server is that you can issue one request and return that response to any number of clients. There are many places where it makes sense to figure out the closest server, but bundling it into DNS seems like one of the worst possible choices to me. DS |