4 ms·
I'm surprised; I would have thought such large sites would use more than one DNS provider? I mean: $ host -t NS twitter.com twitter.com name server ns
by colanderman 10y ago
I'm surprised; I would have thought such large sites would use more than one DNS provider? I mean:
$ host -t NS twitter.com
twitter.com name server ns4.p34.dynect.net.
twitter.com name server ns3.p34.dynect.net.
twitter.com name server ns2.p34.dynect.net.
twitter.com name server ns1.p34.dynect.net.
I would have expected at least one of those to be somewhere else. What is the reason they would not have a backup provider?
- corobo 10y agoI'd guess the reasoning is that DNS providers these days are all anycast-style DNS. A DDoS would usually just be a blip on a few servers around the world depending on where the attacks originate. I'm not saying it's a good reason but it's a reason.
- colanderman 10y agoThe other reason of course to use two different providers is to mitigate the automatic error propagation issue: https://twitter.com/devops_borat/status/41587168870797312 https://twitter.com/devops_borat/status/41587168870797312
- komali2 10y agoI know a lot about some things, but almost nothing about networking, so excuse me if this is a really dumb question but - would your physical location determine what hosts you returned from that query? Like if you were in Asia would you get different ones back?