In message <4195dba6-6eae-45ce-ad61-9236c6212...@google.com>, james woodyatt wr ites: > > On Dec 15, 2016, at 06:35, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > [Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote:] > > Why shouldn't a iterative resolver work if we can make it work? > > > > Putting an iterative resolver in a stub resolver is an attack on the > > DNS infrastructure. If you are doing it because you are testing some > > theory in an experimental jig, that's perfectly fine; in that case, you > > are a consenting adult, and can configure it with a special delegation > > for .homenet if you need that to work. If you are adding it to > > production code that will be installed in a billion devices, you are a > > vandal. > > I doubt any sane home gateway vendor would do this even if the DNS > infrastructure were robust enough to handle it (which, heyâ I thought it > was supposed to be, why isnât it?). The reason is that too many ISPs > insist on enhancing the content of the public DNS with their own private > horizon stuff, so that additional services they bundle to their customers > will work only on their own networks. Competition! Oh and thatâs before I > mention the extra featurefulness that many content delivery networks are > still using for selecting servers based on the source address of the > iterative DNS query instead of something more meaningful.
Too many people are already use third party DNS servers (Google etc.) for ISPs to get away with this garbage anymore. Iterative resolvers in the CPE router just work. The issue is more about iterative resolvers not in the CPE router. Mark > --james woodyatt <j...@google.com <mailto:j...@google.com>> -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
