On Feb 1, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Curtis Maurand <cmaur...@xyonet.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'd rather send him to something more open like kernel.org; anything but
>> Google's DNS. Google's DNS is a little too nefarious for my taste.
>
> <tinfoil hat off>
> nefarious? as a route object to track for selection of a default route?
> really?
> </tinfoil hat off>
>
> I think watching something 'very stable' like.... 198.6.0.0/16 may be
> useful, but in the end "pick some route that's long lived and not in
> just your upstream's control', that you see via both upstreams." seems
> like the best option.
I think that a better word than "nefarious" would be "smart" -- Google's DNS
may be doing its own optimizations which may conflict with your "route that's
long lived" constraint.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
