3 ms·

I appreciate your feedback and am interested by your point of view on this. > It's not better for the internet as a whole. We've built this because we believe

I appreciate your feedback and am interested by your point of view on this. > It's not better for the internet as a whole. We've built this because we believe if all the people manually trawling websites looking for particular pieces of data were instead fetching this data automatically through ultra-efficient DNS queries, it would be better for the internet as a whole. > Host your own data behind a CDN and S3. We could certainly do this, we've made this a DNS-based protocol so domain owners can adopt it independently in their own DNS.

belthesar 5y ago
Have you considered that part of the reason why DNS is ultra efficient is that it's a relatively constrained dataset of small but meaningful data objects? I worry for all of the places running caching DNS proxies suddenly tanking their query resolver performance because their caches are flushing far more rapidly, and root hint servers seeing a massive influx of data now being stored in the platform. The technical marvel is cool, but I sincerely worry about this becoming a widely used product.
- elliottinvent 5y ago
  > Have you considered that part of the reason why DNS is ultra efficient is that it's a relatively constrained dataset of small but meaningful data objects? I’m not sure it is. The size of DNSSEC responses are not insignificant. The apex for many domains is polluted with utter garbage: dig target.com TXT The DNS is ultra efficient because it’s cached and distributed, yes packet sizes are relatively small but a standard NUM record would be smaller than the original udp packet limit of 512.