3 ms·
I think "productive" depends on who's paying the bill and whether the uses of it were how the system was actually designed. I don't think that the roots ever ha
by dpcx 4y ago
I think "productive" depends on who's paying the bill and whether the uses of it were how the system was actually designed. I don't think that the roots ever had the idea of serving random requests billions of times because that's the entire point of having the downstream servers and DNS caching. I remember a time when directly pinging the root servers was considered very bad practice because you should always be using the downstream... Google's method essentially makes those downstream servers useless.
- tptacek 4y agoAll of these norms about DNS queries are deployed situationally. Namedroppers types angry about excess root queries today will defend the notion of end-user operating systems querying the roots directly to facilitate DNSSEC (which without direct recursive lookups from end-systems condenses down to a single "yes I did DNSSEC" bit set by your local DNS server). Everybody can look at this DNS probe code and kibitz about whether it could have been done more efficiently or whether it should be done at all, but this is a straightforward use of the DNS to do something important for end-users (detect whether their ISP's nameserver is lying to them about NXDOMAIN). Whatever else it is, it isn't a DDOS attack, and whatever else these servers are, they're not quiet out-of-the-way private systems; they're core Internet infrastructure.
- jeffbee 4y agoPeople seem to think DNS root queries are answered by monks or something. There are ~1000 anycast sites serving the 13 roots and their load is close enough to zero to be ignored. Even if Chrome causes half of the traffic, who cares?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]