5 ms·
> only one open DNS resolver — Hurricane Electric’s Open DNS service — has a 97% QNAME Minimisation ratio. The Open Resolver’s services that record ratios of be
by octoberfranklin 6y ago
> only one open DNS resolver — Hurricane Electric’s Open DNS service — has a 97% QNAME Minimisation ratio. The Open Resolver’s services that record ratios of between 50% and 70% raise a question as to what is happening here?
If this isn't a smoking gun I don't know what is.
HE is the only entity on that list with a non-0% ratio who is also a backbone carrier -- i.e. their own routers have no 0.0.0.0/0 route.
Obviously there is tampering going on here; no sane DNS software includes an "if (rand()) { do_qname_minimization_today(); }". And, obviously, the tampering is happening at the carrier level. And you can bet the answer starts with a "Century" and ends with "Link".
- PostPlummer 6y agoYour answer baffles me. From the blog I get the impression Geoff is not "raise a question as to what is happening here" about HE's 97%, but more about all the others with >0% & <97%. Would you care to enlighten us with what you are implying?
- salawat 6y agoIf I'm grokking correctly, the poster is asserting that there are ISP shenanigans going on due to the fact that measurements aren't coming in in a binary nature. Either you support QNAME minimization, or you don't. If you support it, but someone else in the recursive resolution chain doesn't, that would explain <100% measurements, since they pass on more info than they should be, and in theory there may be temporary reentrant loops due to poorly managed BGP, which results in unminimized DNS queries being visible to the measurer somehow. The poster seems to think Century Link is involved in a fundamental way. Which admittedly, given their track record with hosing large swathes of the Internet these last couple years may not be unreasonable. At least that was what I got out of it.
- octoberfranklin 6y agoYes, that's pretty much exactly what I was trying to say.