>> All our nodes are using a local DNS caching server and only use google >> as a fallback. > > I was also using google just as a fallback; I've now changed my node to > just use a local resolver, with no fallback. > > Neither the email from nusenu nor the documentation pointed to actually > says which of these options is preferable. If you (nusenu) are looking > to reduce the exits using these resolvers, I'd suggest explicitly also > saying to not use them even as a fallback after a local resolver > (assuming that's what you want). Maybe you had intended this to come > across with the existing text, but I don't think it's obvious enough.
Yes, I was not clear on that, thanks for your feedback I amended the text in the Tor Relay Guide aiming to clarify this. here is the diff (which includes also other changes) https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/TorRelayGuide?action=diff&version=210 the most relevant change with regards to your comment is: was: "Don't use any of the big DNS resolvers to avoid centralization" is: "Don't use any of the big DNS resolvers as your primary or fallback DNS resolver to avoid centralization" "if you want to add a second DNS resolver as a fallback to your /etc/resolv.conf configuration, try to choose a resolver within your autonomous system and make sure it is not your first entry in that file (the first entry should be your local resolver)" -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu twitter: @nusenu_
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
