5 ms·

You're right, but caching would be much less effective and this would place a larger load on authoritative servers, especially the roots and TLDs. In-practice i

You're right, but caching would be much less effective and this would place a larger load on authoritative servers, especially the roots and TLDs. In-practice it would be less reliable too; there are a lot of DDOS-mitigation techniques involved in internet-scale DNS operations, and direct consumer resolvers would fall victim to throttling and other measures at much higher rates than the pseudo-centralized ISP resolvers. It'd be a pretty big shift in patterns and so far the Internet operator consensus has been to avoid this.

mschuster91 4y ago
> It'd be a pretty big shift in patterns and so far the Internet operator consensus has been to avoid this. Agreed, but if there is any hope to avoid even more centralization to enforce censorship, that stance has to change. And better it changes now and gradually so that everyone can adjust, than that it changes rapidly e.g. as the result of opposition to yet another censorship bill.
- zamadatix 4y ago
  There is very unlikely any hope there will be less centralization. Not relying on a "evil theory" explanation or anything it's just impractical to deploy it that way all the time. The nice thing about the design is for those that really do see it as critically important it allows for them to do it. Since that number is low it doesn't create scaling problems.