IMHO, off the top of my head, on a weekend where I haven't had enough coffee
yet:
3. Anycasted DNS Providers? Not sure how they could fix it, other than
flag certain domains as special, and do something special for them,
but man that smells like a hack.
Anycast is a good thing, but when geo-location style concerns are factored
in maybe they should have region-based anycast addresses.
Interestingly, with Google there could be another similar concern WRT the
IPv6 "trusted tester program" (or whatever the correct name of that is)
where the DNS resolver / organization could have sufficient IPv6
connectivity to qualify, but that capability might not expand to the clients
of / hosts within the service.
/TJ
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Beckman [mailto:beck...@angryox.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 2:51 PM
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: RE: L3: Google from DC via the Netherlands?
>
>On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Peter Beckman wrote:
>
>> I'm OK to that IP as well, but when I query www.google.com, I get
>> multiple IPs, but here are the ones that in in 147:
>>
>> DNS Server IP Route (for me)
>> 205.234.170.217 (tiggee) 74.125.79.147 Amsterdam
>> 208.67.222.222 (opendns) 64.233.183.147 Amsterdam
>> 4.2.2.1 (verizon) 74.125.19.147 San Jose
>> 198.6.1.3 (uu.net/verizon) 74.125.47.147 Washington DC (yay)
>
> So someone from Google has been helpful in pointing out that the resolver
> IP, not YOUR IP, is the one that determines where you get routed to when
> you make a request for www.google.com. Which is simply due to the way
> things are implemented, which makes sense.
>
> The problem is, here I am, just some guy, and 99%* of the Internet
>resolves
> to the same IP(s) regardless of who I ask. But then the other 1%*, and
> this would likely be larger players who are diversified and have systems
> in multiple locations and networks, do something funky and give a
> different address depending on where your DNS server is in the network.
>
> Then throw in the possibility that YOUR DNS servers are anycasted for
> great justice, or at least for good reliability. Now when you base YOUR
> answer on the caching server's IP address, well, it may not make sense.
> It seems that Tiggee and OpenDNS are anycasted, as is DNS Advantage, as
> well as some root nameservers.
>
> Thus my problem -- because I ask two free resolving name services, which
> I believe to be anycasted, where to go, I get routed to Amsterdam instead
> of a few miles down the road in Ashburn, VA, and spend 100ms instead of
> 10ms travelling the globe, costing someone more money for Atlantic Ocean
> transit when it was unnecessary.
>
> SO. Who's problem is this to fix? Is it:
>
> 1. Me? Am I a dope for using a very reliable but anycasted resolving
> name service? Clearly, I could just use the handy dandy easy to
> remember because I worked there 198.6.1.x, or is that an Internet
> faux pas because technically I wasn't given permission to use it?
>
> 2. Google? They probably have an interest in making sure my
experience
> to their services are fast and as close to me as possible, but I'm
> probably a minority and not worth the effort of refactoring a giant
> DNS implementation just to fix my one problem, nay, inconvenience.
>
> 3. Anycasted DNS Providers? Not sure how they could fix it, other than
> flag certain domains as special, and do something special for them,
> but man that smells like a hack.
>
> 4. My ISP? Does the ISP have to gripe at Google for providing bad
> results that causes traffic to go over expensive lines when it
could
> have easily gone locally and much more cheaply? I'm assuming that
> sending my traffic over the Atlantic to the Netherlands costs
> SOMEONE more money than if I had gone to a datacenter nearby, both
> physically and network-wise.
>
> 5. Nobody? Is it just the price the customer (me, who helps generate
> income for Google by using Google and clicking AdWords ads all day)
> pays for the reliability, redundancy and fault tolerance that
Google
> has implemented?
>
> I think things are working as implemented -- it's not "broken," but it
> seems it could be better. Then again, sometimes better is more expensive
> than the status quo, either in time or money or both.
>
> NOTE: I do not admit to knowing that 100% of what I've written is fact,
> and if you know better than I, please correct me and show me the light.
>
> * Numbers have no basis, just a guess.
>
>Beckman
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Peter Beckman Internet Guy
>beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
