Quoting goli...@dyne.org (goli...@dyne.org): > Can't say for sure. Wouldn't Comcast/Spectrum/RoadRunner(TWC) be > able to throttle traffic more effectively using their in-house DNS > service? Maybe unbound escapes their reach?
I don't think this is likely for various reasons including the fact that traffic throttling that can be evaded just by using a non-default DNS nameserver is excessively feeble traffic throttling. On available evidence, although there might have been multiple sources of badness for all I know, you had at least _one_ identifiable problem source in the form of really bad ISP DNS nameservers. (As I think I've already said, this is about the opposite of surprising, to yr. humble servant. ;-> ) We can have fairly high confidence in the foregoing for the simple reason of that badness having gone away when you swapped in Unbound. If I were charged with doing traffic throttling at, say, an ISP, I would do it with iptables/netfilter or equivalent, i.e., at a lower level in the network stack than where DNS operates. (I won't torture you with the '7 layer burrito' speech infamous among all junior sysadmins and aspiring network engineers, who are obliged to commit to memory the OSI Reference Model before interviewing for jobs. https://www.6connect.com/blog/moment-internet-history-osi-7-layer-burrito/ ) _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
